The American Spectator : What Conservatives Must Now Do

Text Size

Another Perspective

What Conservatives Must Now Do

By Peter Ferrara on 12.31.08 @ 6:07AM

Laying the foundation for a political comeback.

(Page 2 of 3)

The grassroots networks discussed above would help greatly with the communications challenge. Conservative think tanks should look to communicate in part through these networks. Conservative intellectuals should look to tour the country speaking to such groups.

But there needs to be an additional, special focus. There are about 80 congressional swing districts now mostly represented by Democrats, especially Democrats who campaigned as conservatives to defeat incumbent Republicans. A special communications network needs to be set up for these districts. Local newspapers, radio stations, TV news people, local talk show hosts need to be identified for each such district. They then need to be targeted for commentary submissions, interviews with conservative policy experts, local speaking engagements by such experts, etc. These districts should also be a special focus for grassroots organizing.

Facts and analysis on the key contested issues in Washington should be poured into these districts. But most important would be how the supposedly conservative local congressional representative is voting in Washington, what bills he or she is sponsoring, what he or she is saying in Washington and elsewhere out of the district.

Any conservative organization can take the lead in identifying the local media contacts in these districts, and then making that network available to other conservative organizations. In fact, any think tank or other conservative organization can set up its own op-ed columnist syndicate to compete with the Copley News Service, Knight-Ridder, and other columnist distributors. Ideally, the organization would develop relationships with op-ed page editors across the country, including at the local papers in the key congressional districts, as well as at major newspapers nationwide. A well-known, big name conservative affiliated with the organization could tour these newspapers to help establish and solidify such contacts.

The Tax Opportunity

The central promise of the Obama campaign was to cut taxes for the bottom 95% of income earners. Obama stated in one of the debates that if you were in the bottom 95%, “your taxes will go down, not up.” Conservatives must now enforce that campaign promise.

The minute Obama or anyone else in Congress proposes to raise taxes on anyone in the bottom 95%, conservatives must explode, calling on Obama’s own campaign promise in opposition. This is key to stopping massive expansions of big government, because the government is not going to get much additional revenue trying to tax the top 5% even more. It is also the key for a conservative comeback.

Undoubtedly, some on the left will argue that everyone breaks their campaign promises. Conservatives would be foolish to let them get away with this. Such an argument would effectively take our democracy away from us, for how can we tell who to vote for except through what the candidates say and promise during their campaigns? How can we vote for the policies we want if candidates can just dismiss what they said once elected? George Bush Sr. was voted out of office because he broke his pledge not to raise taxes. Conservatives must now try to do the same to Obama, and the liberal-left congressional majorities.

And we do not need to be shy about what constitutes a tax increase. An individual mandate requiring workers to buy health insurance, which Obama explicitly opposed during the election, is a tax increase on the bottom 95%. So is a carbon tax or cap and trade global warming regulation that would directly raise the price of energy and its use, including electricity, gas, and maybe cars. In fact, global warming regulation is another factor that will be powerful in bringing down the Obama Administration and the liberal-left majorities, with its high costs and disastrous economic effects. Conservatives need to be alert to pounce on this as well.

What we need to avoid on taxes, and other issues across the board, is the strategy of the smart surrender, giving in to policies we oppose in order to make them less bad. Too many conservatives are arguing now for adoption of a carbon tax to fight global warming, and to shift our economy from oil, gas and coal use, with the new tax revenues to be offset by tax cuts elsewhere. This ultraliberal Congress is not going to offset any new tax with other tax cuts. Wave a dollar in front of the noses of this band of pirates and thieves, and they will immediately spend two. We need to fight and win, not lose by falling for less bad defeats. Indeed, the more brilliant we are in achieving these less bad defeats, the longer the liberals will dominate in office.

Global warming and the carbon tax are perfect examples of the biggest problem with the strategy of the smart surrender. The intellectual and political tides are already turning against the big lie of global warming. Even the lefty European public is showing now that it is not willing to bear any significant cost for this fairy tale. That will be so much more true for the American public, even more so with the weak economy. But if we spend our resources focusing on smart surrenders on this issue, we will get the surrender just when victory is at hand.

Socialized Medicine

The biggest threat conservatives face from the now ruling liberal left is a new, massive, overwhelming entitlement in the form of national health insurance. Once such a giveaway is adopted, it will be very difficult to reverse, more so than the rest of the Obama liberal-left agenda. This will mean not only massively higher taxes and spending. It will mean also the destruction of our health care system, as investment in both human and physical capital, meaning the best in doctors and surgeons, as well as new high tech medicine, medical equipment, and drug therapies, is driven away by big government control squeezing out profits and opportunities for economic gain in health care.

Page: < 12 3 >

topics:
Conservatism

About the Author

Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (133) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Michael L. Hauschild| 12.31.08 @ 9:40AM

I have broken my heart and broken my back contributing, marching in parades, standing on corners holding signs, traveling to the statehouse to speak with my representatives, and manning phone banks to support conservative (only) candidates. Many win, only to go to Washington and abandon their principles and jump on the re-election bandwagon for an “upgrade,” forsaking their constituents for self-importance, power, and fiscal entitlement.
Also as inevitable following every election loss someone comes along and composes a boilerplate blueprint article such as Ferrara's. The scheme never works because the same people who get the money are part of the system and use most of it to maintain the dysfunctional structure, their elitist status and the sacred incumbency.
Your “no compromise” agenda falls flat when the very groups you encompass to engineer this comeback has a track record of failure and work at cross-purposes. Individual freedom is my “no compromise” stand. “Firearms ownership,” “reproductive processes” and “consenting adults” are all concepts that for me are off the table and will not be in my party’s platform.
You want results? Here is what you do. Throw out of office every single incumbent, every RNC committee member, and donate nothing because you are throwing money down a malignant rat hole. You will sorely need those contributions to pay the impending crushing tax burden brought about by all those “conservatives” we elected to the “bipartisan” beltway.
You cannot fix something that is completely broken; start over.

ncatty| 12.31.08 @ 11:17AM

Good comment Michael. Are you saying abandon the Republican/Whig brand and start a new conservative party? As to Mr. Ferrara's article, did I miss a foreign policy element?

Sara G| 12.31.08 @ 12:20PM

Conservative intellectuals should look to tour the country speaking to such groups.
*******************************************
Most conservative intellectuals abandoned the party after the choice of Sarah Palin for VP. Most of us are searching for a reason to come back to the party. Your article further alienates those of us who have "jumped ship". Not all conservative are neocons. If more social conservatism was the answer, McCain would be the current president in waiting.

RIGHTALK Radio | 12.31.08 @ 12:21PM

Mr. Ferrara is right on the money to put such emphasis on the fact that conservatives need to work on communications. We would argue however, that rather than relying on the usual MSM, which is overtly left-wing, conservatives need to become their own media. In addition to the usual MSM outlets, the Left has a vertically integrated propaganda machine that starts with highschool film classes and ends with 3, non-commercial, 24/7 satellite tv channels. George Soros' film institute has morphed into the Sundance Film Institute. The Sundance Kid is fronting for Soros!

Amy Goodman, (Noam Chomsky's sock-puppet) has a terrestrial radio presence in 46 out of 50 states on public radio stations with an annual budget well in excess of $5 million dollars. Her KGB Broadcasting Network propaganda hour is playing daily on a public tv station in Denver and conservatives are wondering why Colorado is turning blue?

Conservatives need to stop complaining about the Left's media and relying on what crumbs they deign to throw us and start paying to produce and distribute their own media. Conservatives need to stop talking to themselves, and start talking to the public at large. When it comes to a communications war (which is what the Left is engaged in), there are two choices: 1) silence the opposition or, 2) outproduce the opposition. Why don't the conservatives have their own non-commercial satellite tv channel like the Left does? Why don't conservatives have their own non-commercial, public radio programming like the Left does? Why?

The Left spends tens of millions of dollars annually on non-commercial, public broadcasting to get their message out even though they already have 7 out of 8 communications modes in their pockets. How much did conservatives spend on non-commercial public broadcasting? [crickets]

Conservatives need to stop thinking short-term 30 sec commercials for 2 weeks every 4 years and start thinking about a long-term, daily presence. Conservatives don't have a problem with their message, they have a problem *distributing* their message.

VinceP1974| 12.31.08 @ 12:49PM

Most conservative intellectuals abandoned the party after the choice of Sarah Palin for VP.

And don't come back either. If "intellectuals" (who aren't) dont' recognize the self-made citizen-leader then really.. please stay away and keep your toxic arrogance away from my party.

I have no absolutely no respect for anyone who attacks Palin because the person is better than her.

I just imagine if Palin was my mother and people were criticizing her because she had a family... it'd be enraged.

All the well educated , elite, connected Politicians have brought this country to near collapse... you would think these "intellectuals" would realize that maybe sound governance isn't restricted to them.

Vern Crisler| 12.31.08 @ 2:40PM

Ditto on Vince's comments. If you don't like Sarah, become a Democrat already.

Anyone notice that the laughingstock liberal press isn't agonizing over Caroline Kennedy's ability to be a political leader and raise children, or commenting on her expensive clothing, asking her what she reads, and all the other sexist things that were said about Sarah. (Not to mention that Caroline helped select the airhead Biden as VP.)

aware| 12.31.08 @ 3:51PM

The theme should be very simple, total opposition to the State. It is impossible to be a proponent of individual freedom and support any of the Nanny State schemes, since they all require more money(from the producers), more laws(to force compliance), more bureaucrats(to enforce conformity), and more politicians(to collect the rake-off).

The clearest danger to our liberty is now, without the slightest doubt, Big Government and all its supporters. I will not support ANY candidate who isn't committed to the complete destruction of the Welfare State and all its busy-body minions.

The real reason for the creation of the modern Welfare State is to organize criminal activity on a colossal scale. It beats me how anyone actually expects anything good to come from a criminal enterprise. That goes for R's and D's.

Pat| 12.31.08 @ 4:36PM

Hauschild's comments pretty much sum up what many conservatives are thinking - start over. Yes, start over, but analyze the election results realistically. Americans, the voting majority, don't support conservative principles - it's not the fault of the media, the Democratic Party elite or our American aristocracy, the Lords and Ladies of Hollywood or the Academy. The average Joe Main Street didn't support the Republicans and doesn't agree with the principles the conservative spokespersons are perpetually peddling.

You can rationalize Republican failure using correct grammar and good sentence structure, but the underlying message from the electorate is "we don't support or even understand what conservatives stand for." McCain knew that. But, Americans clearly preferred all the extra calories of a full bodied Democratic Party beer, they rejected the Democrat Lite beverage as lacking in substance and failing the taste test.

Given 8 years of Democrat rule, the frustrations and disappointments build to a boiling point and Americans start leaning toward any acceptable Republican candidate, but the fallacy is confusing a switch in brands with a return to "conservative" principles and values.

Jeremiah| 12.31.08 @ 4:38PM

aware --

Your proposal sounds pretty adolescent:

Total opposition to the state?

You seem to have conveniently forgotten that you do not live in Europe. The word "state" is hardly applicable to the variously decentralized form of representative governance that exists in this country.

And what exactly do you mean by "Big Government." That metaphor seems exceedingly bizaree for a "conservative" to use: 40% of the national debt was incurred under Reagan and the two Bushes. What would "small government" look like?

What Welfare State? Have you ever been to Europe? This country has nothing even remotely resembling a "welfare state". For the most part, people are on their own here.

You sound like a teenager who complains if only his parents and teachers would leave him alone, he'd be fine.

Human society requires government: it's the only thing that prevents society from degenerating into the dominance of the weak by the strong.

In fact, I would push this further: governance is GOOD, lack of governance, or anarchy, is EVIL.

Order is good. It is responsible for everything meaninful and worth living for: marriage is order brought to sex; music is order brought to sound; government brings order to human affairs in enforces our legal obligations to our community.

Maybe you should go live in Iraq for a while, if you'd like to know what it's like to live without government and beaurocracy.

Jeremiah| 12.31.08 @ 4:41PM

Mr Radio --

You don't have a terribly sound grip on reality, do you?

Len| 12.31.08 @ 5:55PM

One thing you left out Mr. Ferrara was getting a god understanding of the Constitution, perhaps troublesome because a study of the Federal and State debates isn't a quick read or study, but it's certainly necessary for this fight, because we can't just say we believe in limited government but we need to be able to establish that limited government is indeed the law of the land. If we are to be grassroots, which is in one sense proselytizing each one of us needs to be conversant enough in the facts get others engaged. Also, in our "grassroots movement I think it would be god to prepare people to depart from the GOP like a panicked mob, and leave it floundering if rapid, wholesale change in the leadership and candidates does not occur by 2010. Please think what a dynamic force we would have if every Catholic, every Evangelical, and Jew joined the Constitution party, and every low tax, fiscally conservative, tyranny fearing(What am I missing here) individual made for the Libertarian party. These two parties are the closest politically to the Judeo-Christian, and enlightenment roots of this country.

aware| 12.31.08 @ 7:06PM

Jeremiah... nice little conformist, thinking just like your masters want you to. In case it's over your head I'm talking about a government that is operating OUTSIDE the Constitutional limits that are supposed to constrain it. And who the Hell cares about Europe? They are even more bankrupt than we and they don't know what it really means to be free. Many of them even lack the will to survive as a people.

How can entitlements and subsidies help but favor certain "citizens" over others? Or groups? And how can this fulfill the "general welfare" stated in the Preamble?
My argument is simply this, you may think that to archive a "noble" result it's alright to have a BIG State. But what you don't understand is the existence of such an entity is by its nature hostile to individual freedom. Once it "fixes"(if it ever does) whatever the "crisis" was it retains the power and then it does other things. I shouldn't have to point out the predictable pattern of this power grab to a smart guy like you...crisis, usually caused by government action of some sort, followed by the instilling of panic mentality in the herd. Then the perpetrator of the problem presents itself as the solution, if it only had more power.
The latest rendition of this tired, but still effective, siren song is currently being played out in the economic "crisis" now.

Another thing sheeple like you don't understand is we are not just militant about our God-given rights and liberty, but all Americans. Even you.
You are a fool and a weakling if you think your personal well-being is dependent on government or what it does.

Michael L. Hauschild| 12.31.08 @ 7:34PM

Sarah Palin is the real deal. She leads by example, not deception or false promise. I hope (certainly do not know) the agenda she will promote is one of personal responsibility and not the legislative micromanagement of morals or social issues. Taking on the corruption in Alaska, her constituents’ approval (who would know better), and the incredible presence she projected during the recent campaign makes her my choice. My only regret is that we cannot provide a clean slate on which to write her platform.

Jeremiah| 12.31.08 @ 7:37PM

You seem somehow to be new to the idea that there is conflict between the interests of the individual and the interests of the group.

I assure you, this is a problem that has been confronted before. Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Locke, Rousseau, Kant -- and so on.

I can't remember one of them, nor any founding father, advocating a stateless society or anything approaching one.

The idea that "individual freedom" is possible without government is absurd.

More importantly, you use the word "freedom" as though its meaning is a given. It most certainly is not. (See above philosophers, just for starters.)

What is freedom?

I don't mean to get all philosophical, but you people use that word as if its meaning had been decided once and for all.

You should try being more circumspect; you should acknowledge that every hour of freedom you've enjoyed has been purchased by the labor of others. The bridge you cross when you drive to work didn't just appear there; a simple glass of water from the tap is the work of many, many people (including the liberals who insist government agencies monitor its purity).

aware| 12.31.08 @ 8:31PM

Jeremiah ... When did I call for a " stateless society"?
What part of Constitutional limits don't you get exactly?
It does not surprise me that you don't seem to be able to define freedom so try that towering intellect of your's on this... freedom is the ability to make my own choices and live with the effects of those choices without any interference and to have that ability to its maximum degree so long as it does not infringe on anyone else. Since you don't know what freedom is no wonder you don't know how much you've lost already. Maybe you and all the other "enlightened" can get together and redefine what it means ... no wait, that seems to already be going on.
No, I 'm far from new to any concept of "conflict" between the rulers and the ruled, but thanks for the condescending attitude as though I was.
And by the way, my water comes from my well so I don't owe you or the government or anybody else for the privilege of drinking.
And so far everything you've named as examples of government should properly be the purview of the individual states not the central government as per the Constitution. You're problem is that you are a Leftist and as such a collectivist. And it is your privilege to be such. And it is not only my privilege but my pleasure to oppose you and all schemers and apologists for big government, from the Left or from the Right.

VinceP1974| 12.31.08 @ 8:46PM

Pat says You can rationalize Republican failure using correct grammar and good sentence structure, but the underlying message from the electorate is "we don't support or even understand what conservatives stand for." McCain knew that. But, Americans clearly preferred all the extra calories of a full bodied Democratic Party beer, they rejected the Democrat Lite beverage as lacking in substance and failing the taste test.

So I'll assume you are total ignorant of Obama's frequent descent into Black Preacher voice / cadence / grammar.

His inability to not use 4 "uhs" per sentence?

His emotional outburst to tough questions by cutting off the questioner.. "Look look look... wait a minute.. " (cry) (whine)

Here's some samples of The Won
“If you talk to those wounded warriors at Walter Reed who, prior to me getting to the Senate

And other mess ups

Marking the anniversary of the March 1965 "Bloody Sunday" in Selma, Ala., Obama, speaking at a church, said his parents got together "because of what happened in Selma." Obama was born in 1961.

Obama told Larry King on CNN -- asked about that anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton YouTube ad, a doctored version of a spot created for Apple computers -- "We don't have the technical capacity to create something like that."

One of Obama's stump lines is that the biggest obstacle he fights is not any of his rivals, it is cynicism. He used a variation of it during a reception he hosted at a conference here sponsored by AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Displaying a tin ear, Obama said that one of the enemies is not "just terrorists" or "just Hezbollah" or "just Hamas" -- "it's also cynicism."

The Tribune dug this up: Obama, in his memoir, Dreams of My Father, writes of a story in Life magazine that influenced him -- about a black man trying to bleach his skin white. No such article could be found in Life or Ebony.

Another Obama stump line -- he said it again Tuesday morning to the Communications Workers of America here -- is that "I've been long enough in Washington to know that Washington needs to change." He is running against Washington yet his campaign is populated with political professionals who are Washington insiders.

Obama's embrace of some rhetoric used by rival John Edwards is getting attention. Edwards, in a 2003 speech made for his first presidential run said, "I've spent enough time in Washington to know how much we need to change Washington."

Bill Burton, an Obama spokesman, said in reaction to the Obama stumbles: "If there are people looking for a candidate running to be the darling of the Washington insider crowd, this campaign is not for them. We are encouraged by the growing, unflinching support of Americans who believe we can transform our country by changing our politics."

Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: “Thank you, Sioux City. ... I said it wrong. I’ve been in Iowa for too long. I’m sorry.”

why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.” On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?

Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil-rights movement as a whole.”

in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multibillion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear-waste cleanup: “Here’s something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I’m not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don’t know exactly what’s going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I’ll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport.”

I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he’s voted on at least one defense-authorization bill that addressed the “costs, schedules, and technical issues” dealing with the nation’s most contaminated nuclear-waste site.

in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn’t “pose a serious threat to us” — cluelessly arguing that “tiny countries” with small defense budgets can’t do us harm — and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, “I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.”

charliebravo| 12.31.08 @ 8:58PM

I must reluctantly agree with Michael L. Hauschild . It seems that most politicains who run as conservatives either become RINOs like McCain and Hagel or vote as conservatives but sell themselves to Corporate interests like Santorum and Sununu. Supporting Small Business start ups is one thing but whoring for Publicly Traded Corporations is another. Iwill only support a Politician who gives me more freedom, saves me money and trashes the establishment.Everybody else is a phony

Michael L. Hauschild| 1.1.09 @ 7:35AM

What Conservatives Must Do Now? Screed is as screed does; as you can tell bemoaning the sorry state of affairs in Republican/Conservative politics is the grist of the blog mill. While it vents the spleen, it is mostly airy rhetoric.
So what do we do? May I suggest two things, one is procedural; one is institutional.
(1-procedure) I have worked on the campaigns of several conservatives, some Republicans some Democrats. How this bipartisan blasphemy came about is my belief in the constitutionality of the Second Amendment. The NRA is successful for one reason and one reason only – focus. If you attend an NRA convention there are no discussions of issues other than the rights of citizens to bear arms. The “platform” is the Second Amendment. There are no discussions of prayer in schools (despite the fact that many there support that); there are no discussions about abortion (though I imagine most there would oppose it); there is no discussion about gays, who marries who, where or how (the only concern about consenting adults is that they have the right to carry a concealed weapon if they choose to do so). Therefore those of us who wish to have successful candidates must emulate the procedural step of putting what we do in church, how we approach our reproductive choices, and the societal ramifications of who are mates are aside. Focus – lower taxes, lesser government, and personal freedom.
(2-institution) Most of the candidates I have supported have won, but they all had a serious drawback. Idealism does not trump the beltway. The only thing they learned from the elected elite standing on the podiums endorsing them, sadly, was how to win elections, not how to govern. Since most of them did not have a clue what to do when they got to Washington we need a second institutional phase. Using the procedural premise of focus, retired (not drummed out of office) politicians (conservative, who cares what party as long as they were honest) need to organize a “training center” for candidates. How we would insure that “grassroots” input was primary would be a scholarship program with all the trapping of resumes, public forums and applications. An endorsement from such a group would certainly be a boon to a candidate entering the primaries.
What this institution cannot turn into is another elitist “think tank” it has to be educational. The graduates who successfully achieve election must hit Washington with the ability to implement our (not their own) above stated procedures, they must not accept money or donations from anyone but the party itself, and they must achieve certain assigned goals if they are to remain as our representatives. Results, not rhetoric is to be the measure of their worth. Starting as of now any candidate for these “student” positions could not have previously served in office. Instructors chosen for these “learning centers” must be willing to become ascetic monks for the period of their tenure and will receive their only funding from the party.
Draconian? Certainly. Realistic? We need to try. Oh, one more thing don’t call it a University (been there, done that) make it a boot camp.

L. Jordan| 1.1.09 @ 8:31AM

There are some great ideas in this article and the comments after.

Here is a letter I sent to every person in the RNC that I could find the e-mail for, after the 2006 disaster.
I did not get one response to my letter but my in box e-mail was flooded with letters for donations!!
Here is what I send to them (for what its worth department)

An open letter to the R.N.C.

Educate Via Ads

I strongly believe that the RNC and / or conservative groups should advertise. The ads must be run well in advance of the political season. I strongly believe that this advertising should be simple, attractive, and upbeat. These ads should quote from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the writings of great Americans. These ads should celebrate important people and events in American history, the ads should present the real facts about big picture issues, (the economy, the family and immigration) and reveal the truth behind common liberal rhetoric (e.g. government spending = tax payer dollars). The government creates no wealth, just redistributes it. Our citizenry needs to understand that “Free health care” is not FREE.

The left plays the envy/race card with: “tax cuts for the ‘rich’”. The ‘rich’, the top 50% of the population, pay 96.54% of the taxes, and the top 1% pay 34.17%. Americans value fair play, and the fact that we over-tax the producers and reward the non-producers goes against our country’s most basic beliefs.

These ads should not focus on narrow policy debates or highly controversial issues (e.g., capital gains tax cuts, abortion), but should be aimed at promoting core conservative values of limited government, private property, free enterprise, personal responsibility, strong national defense, and patriotism. The ads must be rigorously nonpartisan. Any open party affiliation will undermine the integrity of the message. Cultural and political transformation, not partisan point scoring, must be the touch stone. The ads must have a website attached for further information.

Both parties spend 10’s of millions on ads at election time. Don’t wait until election time. Educate the citizenry about true conservatism before election time and you won’t have worry at the polls. Conservatives are working at saving our nation. Ronald Reagan will NOT be riding in to save our country. Why not use what he did best? Go straight to the people over the head of the MSM. How can you hear the line: America, the shining city on the hill and not feel proud to be American. Or, how can you not have a tear in your eye when you hear the line: These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Americans -want- to feel good about their country. You will be making converts for life. We are not selling people / candidates, we are selling ideas!
It can be done with advertising.
Thank you for taking the time to read.

Bob| 1.1.09 @ 9:50AM

Peter -- So your basic approach is just say "No" to Democrats and recycle old conservative talking points? Old conservative elections of Reagan and Bush led to as much debt created as all the other presidents combined. If you are looking at fiscal responsibility, the numbers show that Clinton did the best job. That's why the electorate no longer considers Republicans good at fiscal discipline. Therefore, Republicans ought to be single minded and activist on providing economic solutions beyond just "tax cuts" which have proven to mortgage our future because spending never gets cut. The message of spending is not one that Republicans can win right now because they have been the greatest violators in recent history. The emphasis must be on Republican proposals that steward limited government.

All politics are local. Republicans have as much pork in their district as anyone. When it comes to this stimulus bill that is being created, Republicans want their share of this pork. Despite the rhetoric, there is no fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats once they are elected.

You also conveniently forget that Republicans must appeal to the growing segments of the electorate -- the young, blacks, Hispanics, gays -- to win a national election. What, in your platform, appeals to them?

Michael Hauschild, your support of Sarah Palin is enigmatic. Your posts are the result of your experience and knowledge, are well constructed, and are able to make a point succinctly. How can you support someone who doesn't have 1/10th the knowledge that you have? If you consider it important to make your point, don't you consider knowledge to be important to a president who actually makes these important decisions? Having a sense of history and the facts surrounding an issue is what separates good decisions from bad ones. When you don't have it, the "experts" that surround you end up making the decisions for you since you have no base from which to ask good questions. It is obvious that you have spent a number of years building up this knowledge and coming to your own conclusions. There is no credible argument that Sarah Palin has done the same. To support her shows an abandonment of your personal principles. Please don't get caught up on star worship and look objectively at this issue. She is not qualified to be President. Not now, and most likely not in the future.

john smithson | 1.1.09 @ 12:08PM

Indeed, enough of 'intellectual conservative' politic already. The notion that we can compromise our way back into power is a demonstrable lie. Or maybe some of you have not paid any attention to the last several elections. I have not been involved in party politics until now choosing to be an independent conservative rather than a registered Republican. And that bit of idealism has gotten me nothing. So I registered 'Republican' for the first time [and I am 63]. In September I began publishing a political blog hoping to influence a few to go the Right way. And in the fall of 2010, I am going to Arizona, as a registered Republican, to campaign against John McCain. Some of you can make fun of Sarah Palin all you want but if you think McCain was the 'intellectual' in this past contest, well, I just wouldn't want to spend time listening to any of your personal conversation. . . . I fear they would remind me of a Billy May commercial. Let's get into action and defeat the RINO 'conservatives' who have brought our party down. And hey, if Palin could learn to be a good Governor, she could learn to be a President. That is exactly what Obama is trying to do.

john smithson| 1.1.09 @ 12:27PM

Bob at 9.50. Very well written except for one little thing - not a single solution, just a collection of judgments ranging from the profundity of Sarah Palin to the verbal extravegance of Michael Hauschild. Sarah saw things to be done and left the kitchen to get them done. How is that a bad thing? And the Hauschild article (above) is nothing short of awesome. If nothing, it causes us to think and why? Because it posits solutions. And where are the solutions in Bobs masterpiece? Under the pickle?

Bob| 1.1.09 @ 12:29PM

John, let's be factual here. Palin's popularity has dropped significantly in Alaska since she gave a check to all Alaskan's. She's only been a governor for a short time and has had high oil prices to prop her up. This article from an Alaskan newspaper sums it up.

http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/oct/30/palin-sees-dip-popularity-alaska-rest-nation/

As mayor of Wasilla, in addition to that being a very small town, she did not have responsibility for fire, police, or social services as most mayors of large towns do. Therefore, saying that she has learned to be a good Governor is overstating the case dramatically. As a candidate, she did not go through over 20 debates, several press conferences, and being open to interviews on opposing venues like CNN and MSNBC like Obama did. We have a good sense of what Obama believes. We have little sense of what Palin believes since she refused to answer many questions.

By the way, McCain could not remotely be considered the "intellectual" of the party since he graduated fifth from the bottom of his class at Annapolis and could not develop a cohesive strategy for his campaign. Romney was the intellectual candidate for this past election and the person I supported.

If I were advising Palin, I'd ask her to study and develop her own positions on major issues rather than just reading from speeches prepared for her. We don't even know if she can write because she has written nothing by herself. Obama was giving speeches on foreign policy as far back as 1991. Ronald Reagan spent 25 years developing his positions. George Bush had his father's administration to learn from. I just cannot intellectually accept someone just because she has star power. I want to get a sense of how she might make decisions, what she really believes about the major issues of our time, whether she understands the history that precedes her, and that she has some capability make withstand hard times. The fact that you don't makes me question her supporters.

Jeremiah| 1.1.09 @ 1:48PM

aware --

How do you figure that the government as it now operates is outside of "Constitutional limits"?

To the extent that the actions of the government are being challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court, they may well be, but that challenge is part of how the Constitution works, as is any government action that is deemed legitimate.

The Constitution was made to be rewritten, in short. It's flexible and amenable to amendment.

Groucho| 1.1.09 @ 6:55PM

A Vice President has a really great job, because not only are they there to support the President agenda, they're like a team member, the team mate to that President. But also, they're in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the Senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. And it's a great job and I look forward to having that job.

-- Sarah Palin

Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.

-- Sarah Palin

What must conservatives do?

You have to ask?

Karl | 1.1.09 @ 7:03PM

As a retired public school teacher I am convinced that our only hope is to rescue our children from the public (government) schools and raise a godly generation. Please see "Call to Dunkirk" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRGZLSVph3A.

aware| 1.1.09 @ 8:02PM

Jeremiah...

Amendment 10 states"...powers not delegated to he United States by the Constitution,nor prohibited by it to the States,are reserved to the States respectively,or to the people." Since up to and after that point I can see no powers delegated to the Federal government with respect to education, housing, road systems, and a whole host of other things. I'm not saying whether these things are good or bad in this debate, though I have my opinion.
These thing are done but NOT by amendments or any other constitutional way. I know you can't conceive these things as anything but good and worthy, but I would remind you that Al Capone ran a free soup kitchen for the destitute, too.
The way these powers were wrested from the people and the states proves the despotic nature of the modern State(sorry, but the monolithic nature of the thing allow no better name). This also proves it can never be trusted.
You can believe what ever you want but the existence of a State this powerful is a deadly threat to your liberty and and even your very life. If you've read Plato he says the same thing in The Republic. Madison and many, if not all, of the framers agree on the despotic and tyrannical nature of government. All government. That's why they wanted the very least possible.

I'm sick of Republicans who grow government and Democrats,too. And I intend to vote that way whenever I get the chance.

Jeremiah| 1.1.09 @ 10:01PM

aware--

I hate to cavil with someone who knows as much about the Constitution as you do, but how is it that the text you cite precludes the federal government's building of bridges, roads, etc.?

And how does building a bridge or shooting a rocket at the moon or funding a museum make the federal government necessarily despotic?

When the president suspends habeas corpus and renders prisoners to foreign countries to be tortured -- well, that's something entirely different.

Ran| 1.1.09 @ 10:01PM

Mr. Ferrara,
A Happy New Year to you and to the crew at TAS.

Our shul has a few libertarian-oriented conservatives in the ranks. ("Mugged liberals" to a man.) It's a disconnected, unorganized lot. I've taken your suggestions in this post to heart. You've outlined practical, achievable steps towards effective local political action. I've been making print-outs and distributing this article with TAS links in the header.

The key, I believe, is to appeal to minorities - minorities of one, to be specific. On this basis, we can reach even liberals and Democrats who feel the need to safeguard and return individual freedom. Some of us are better than others at communicating the ideals - I'm not one of those. I can organize, though - did quite a job of it at grad school. We'll pool talents, share data and press onwards.

In the mean time, I hope to send some new readers to the TAS online. That's 'bout the only real way I know to say 'THANKS!' for the article.

Cheers!

John Lofton | 1.2.09 @ 12:59AM

Forget "conservatism," please. It has been Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

Michael L. Hauschild| 1.2.09 @ 3:26AM

I just took Mr. Lofton up on his offer to visit “The American Way.” Wow. Mike Huckabee is not religious enough for them, for some reason they are mad at Frank Zappa (he is still dead by the way), and they want to prosecute Bush and Cheney for foreign and domestic war crimes because of evidence uncovered by Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. That last part begs the question, “Do they have to take off their tin foil hats to view MSNBC?

Deborah | 1.2.09 @ 4:51AM

Hey there, Mr. Ferrara. I saw a link on www.instapundit.com yesterday and thought I'd share it with you and the rabble here at TAS. (I say that affectionately). This blogger says conservatives should launch a YouTube channel. I think the idea has merit. You can read about it here: http://copiousdissent.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-conservative-bloggers-can-learn.html

aware| 1.2.09 @ 7:19AM

O K,Jeremiah ...all I know about the Constitution is what I read in it. Your problem is you are, like all Leftists, convinced you are the smartest person in the room and so are not listening. The 10 Amendment is as clear as a bell and if you read the 9th it puts an even finer point on it. As Madison said the powers of the central government are "limited and enumerated". In other words few and listed. Anything NOT listed is reserved to the States or the people. If you don't see this it is because you support an agenda that cannot really pass Constitutional muster, and so you quibble over the meaning of "is".

But you are missing my point, it is not what the State is doing but rather how it acquired the power to do these things that proves the despotic nature that I'm trying to point out. You seem to think it is no big deal as long as a "good" result is achieved. As you said in a previous post we could change the role of the State through amendments or even rewriting the Constitution but that's NOT what is happening. In other words, the State is not even playing by the rules that you admit exist. This is the giant hole in your defense of the State and you don't seem to see this inconsistency.
You are being manipulated by cynical, professional politicians who have convinced you that life is not even possible without the State and, more importantly, them running it.
The truth is the State only cares about how much of your money it is entitled to and how many of you it can fill its battalions with.
You named a few philosophers but I'm not convinced that you understand any of them. I would add Hegel(all within the State and nothing outside the State) because you won't have to read or understand to be in perfect agreement.
However, if you want an alternative view I suggest Albert Nock , H.L.Mencken, Henry Hazlett, or Lord Acton as they were rightly skeptical of State power.
The essence is that no matter how glittering and "enlightened" your State is it will still be controlled by men. Men are fallen and can be counted on to act in their own self-interest(maintaining their own power over others). This causes all kinds of mischief at the individual level, but at the level of the State it can and does cause sheer calamity. It's because of the amount of power the State wields.
Mentioning torture of prisoners again only highlites your inconsistency in understanding the rule of law. Of course this military action is unconstitutional(no formal declaration of war by Congress) but so are the roads and bridges, the welfare entitlements paid with property confiscated from the rightful owners, the Patriot Act, Federal interference in education and housing, and a host of other things. You think picking and choosing unconstitutional endeavors based on "desirable outcomes" somehow upholds and strengthens the rule of law?

Rogelio El Contrario| 1.2.09 @ 11:36AM

Peter Ferrara seems to have been left behind by the commentary that followed his article. How unkind. Let me go back to Poor Peter.

First, to save Conservatism, (What Conservatives Must Now Do), Poor Peter says: "We must stop the destructive policy initiatives of the Obama Administration..." Peter wrote this on 12.31.08.

Peter, Peter, Peter, the Obama Administration doesn't even start until January 20, 2009!

No wonder no one commented on Poor Peter's little article! Perhaps the American Spectator can contact some of the commentators to find better writers. They had more interesting things to say than Poor Peter!

Relcontrario@hotmail.fr

ThinkTank| 1.2.09 @ 12:07PM

Somebody get VinceP1974 a drool bib...

TrueSoldier| 1.2.09 @ 12:38PM

Here is my take on the whole situation. First of all, Conservatism did not loose this election as the only true Conservatism was found in ballot measures, not in candidates.

Prop 8 won overwhemingly and to do so at least a portion of the Obama voters in the Golden State had to vote yes on prop 8. To me this shows that people are looking for Conservatism in their lives (they jsut may not know the name for it).

After talking to many people here on the western side of Washington State (far from a bastion of Conservatism); I have come to find that the majority of voters here felt that Obama and McCain's stances on the majority, not all, issues was very similiar if not down right the same and they chose to go with the party not in the presidency (even though they controlled both houses the last two years, the same two years the economy started it's nosedive).

With this being said, I feel there are many things we need to do. First and foremost is change in the education system. We need to get back to teaching our children how to think not what to think. This is probably one of the biggest issues facing our country as our high school age children for the most part do not even know how our government truly runs (most think that the President is solely responsible for everything that goes on and does not realize that Congress is the one who actually can decide to make happen the Presidnets policy through the crafting of new laws).

Secondly, we do need to get a true Conservative message back out there. Not the water downed version that some claim win elections (Reagan won two landslide victories on truly Conservative messages). We do this not only by the way this article says, but by truly getting involved. Start running for elected office yourselves (I plan to) whether it be at the local, state or federal level. We need more Average Americans with great ideas in politics and less career politicians who make great claims during a campaign season, but changes into a hog at the trough once they get into office.

john smithson | 1.2.09 @ 2:55PM

Bob, you begin with these words, "John, let's be factual here. Palin's popularity has dropped significantly in Alaska since she gave a check to all Alaskan's. She's only been a governor for a short time and has had high oil prices to prop her up. This article from an Alaskan newspaper sums it up. "

Well, I am up for "factual." Shall we? The Democrat rag you quote inflates her highwater mark to 90% when, in most surveys I saw {back during the campaign] , she scored in the high 70% bracket. . . . . down to the mid-60's or so since then. Still one of the most popular Governors in America. She has been a Governor for two years and the opinions of a Democrat leaning "newspaper" only sums up editorial bias.

You contrast Palin to Obama and, ShaZam, Obama is the winner. You forget that Obama refused 10 townhall debates and would not appear in any discussion that was not carefully monitored and controlled. MSMBC and CNN both gushed over this man - no hardball questions. Was Palin ready for the two interviews for which she is most criticized? No. And I fault McCain not Palin. She was the second fiddle. She had to play his game and a game it was.

I would like to see here finish her term as Governor and then run for the Senate. She shined in the Biden debate and did so as a pure novice.
She appears to be honest, hardworking, a quick learner and one who cares about real issues. With some practical experience, she will be a force in the years to come.

I find it laughable that you think we know much about Obama. He used the Black election strategy of "deracialization" to get elected. I have put together a number of points that seem to be part of the Obama political agenda - although none of us really know for certain:
A belief that the U.N. is both useful and necessary
A belief that Guantánamo Bay must be closed
A belief that your 401k should be taken from you and added to the Social Security fund
A belief that the Patriot Act needs to be repealed
A belief there are times when the Government knows better than the parent
A belief in reparations to the Black community for the sins of slavery
A belief that Jesus Christ does not define "God" in exclusive terms
A belief that pre-emptive military strikes are categorically wrong
A belief that "affordable housing" policies need to be expanded
A belief that any and all abortion legislation is good
A belief that all industry should be unionized
A belief that privatized education threatens the National Well-being
A belief that capitalism has produced economic failure on many levels
A belief that political debate needs to be limited
A belief that terrorism should be defined as a criminal activity
A belief that he and Michelle are a co-Presidency
A belief that conservative Christian talk have legislative limits
A belief that the Christian Church cannot have membership requirements if it partners with the Government in aid and relief
A belief that he and Michelle owe a political debt to the Black community
A belief that the Military offers great opportunity for our Nation's minority
A belief that conscience laws should not be allowed for health care providers
A belief that pre-emptive military strikes are categorically wrong

He is a scary fellow who single most pronounced qualification for President is that he got an A in school.

John Smithson
Editor/Consevative Activist
MidKnight Review
http://midknightreview.blogspot.com/

We should all be conservative activists

Norm | 1.2.09 @ 7:35PM

Great post! Interesting and great comments...

My biggest fear is the United Nations...little is said about this corrupt organization.. and that is intentional!
The Democratic left refuses to make known their plans that are clearly stated in the Law Of The Sea Treaty (LOST)...they have carefully controlled the MSM from commenting on this treaty that will ultimately do away with our sovereignty (see subsection G of LOST). This is also an important issue with the New World Order crowd that includes both the Clinton and Bush families...and a favorite of John McCain and the CFR clan of 3,000 plus members.
Not enough is said about LOST but it is the main reason the Democrats wanted the senate seat in Georgia and Norm Coleman's seat in Minnesota. Remember that they need a 2/3 majority in the senate (not the house) to ratify this diaster signed by Bill Clinton in 1992 in Brazil...Bush tried to get it ratified in October of '06...
Lawrence Eagleberger tried to convince Conservatives (to agree on LOST) on RedState.com around the same time .

Not to change my impetus too much, I'm very concerned about the 2nd Amendment for we may have to resort to this (see video): http://normanhooben.blogspot.com/2009/01/when-2nd-amendment-aint-suffcient-well.html

carolinem| 1.2.09 @ 9:16PM

It's hard to believe that yet another conservative article writer could so miss the point of what ails the conservative movement. The issues he raises mean nothing to the vast majority of Americans outside the think tank/rubbeer chicken circuit/fundraising talking point letters that already saturate Republican circles. Why does he not mention the illegal alien invasion, the out-of-control federal spending and expansion of Medicare, federal control of education, deficits, trillion dollar bailouts and general incompetence displayed over the last eight years? Are these too controversial to bring up in polite Republican company? The Bush administration has bankrupted the country, disparaged and criticized conservatives for daring to disagree with it on amnesty for illegal aliens, and allowed state and local taxes to skyrocket to cover the costs of federal mandates and federal incompetence. As for global warming, McCain embraced this politically correct cause. The Party is in a shambles from leadership that sold out the American people and deserves to go down. And I say this as a lifelong Republican.

Joe Heathen| 1.2.09 @ 10:13PM

As long as you lust for Sarah Palin in 2012 and Rush, Sean, Ann, Michelle, the multiple Michaels, Jonah, Hugh, and a host of others remain the faces and voices of your concept of "conservatism", you are doomed by your own hands and minds.
-
It's truly funny, in a literally humorous sense, that you folks just cannot grasp the reality of that state of affairs. Oh well . . .

john smithson | 1.3.09 @ 12:47AM

Joe. Lets see. We actually did it your way via Bush 43 and McCain. The Republican Party is in the death grip of Specter, Collins, Arnold and the like. And while you blame those who have a voice, it seems that you are the one who does not grasp what has happened over the past three (at least) elections. While we "won" with Bush 43, we lost ground and finally both houses. Those who talk and those who lead (in the GOP) are two very different sets of people. I would be interested in what you think the GOP should actually do to get back on track and, at the same time, justify a requisite need for a second Party.

We have liberal judges because of Specter and the role he has played in blocking a couple of hundred conservative appointees. We have Arnold who deserted all of his claimed conservative principles after the California Unions defeated him a couple of years back. I have lost track of just why we voted Gray Davis out of office so many decades ago - or was it just yesterday? There is Susan Collins, the Queen of Pork from Maine, and, until recently, Bloomberg who changed his Party Identification to Republican for no other reason but to get elected. And the GOP in the midst of a political crisis of the soul said "Come on down !!" GOP leadership actually introduced this man as a Republican more than once !! And then there is McCain, a man with absolutely no political soul. He claims to be against "birthmarks" or whatever they are called while voting for this last $700 billion bailout. Every once in a while, you will actually hear a reporter mention the fact that this bailout has grown to $850 billion ! Not really. Certainly, the total is 850 but the bailout funds are 700b . So what is the additional $150 billion? Pork, my friend. McCain just voted for four times the total Pork Bill for all of 2008. When he spoke against spending during this past election cycle, he must have met "birthmarks" because he just couldn't have met "earmarks" and claim to be an honest politician. Anyway, I am going to Arizona in 2010 and work as a registered Republican to defeat McCain. Anyone care to join me? Carolinem - there are lots of us who get it. We are mad as hell and are not going to take it any more. If the current GOP lackies think they can win an election without conservative rhetoric, let'em try -- one more time.

John Smithson
http://midknightreview.blogspot.com/

Patrick Spooner| 1.3.09 @ 3:56AM

Peter makes some very valid points. However, one thing we all need to recongnize is that Washington politicians typically do not have a clue what it is like in the "real" America. Many of them have never held a "real" job, owned or worked for a business managing people and a budget, never had to ensure they could meet a payroll.

"Having" a staff and budget provided by the federal government taking money from the taxpayers without doing anything to "earn" it is not the same as having customers or clients that you must continually satify to "earn" revuene and sustain a business.

The system is corrupt and broken when it is set up so that someone like "John Kerry" can get people to believe that he really "works" and runs his office and staff - when you don't have to "earn" the money necessary to sustain your livelihood, you don't have a clue what it is like to live in the real America.

The "Lifetime" politicians have to be voted out of office, we have to force term limits on politicans at all levels, local, state and federal. That is what the founding fathers wnated because it worked! The only way for this to happen is if "we" the citizens demand it and work hard to ensure that terms limits are installed. Nothing good comes from a politican being in office "forever" - only bad things can happen because they "expect" to be taken care of by taking from taxpayers an uncontrollable amount of our hard earned pay - the taxpayers are powerless to stop them. We the people will have no control over these "lifetime" politicians until we can more easily throw them out of office and term limits is the first major step in any attempt to control them.

vincep1974| 1.3.09 @ 7:00AM

I get the impression that GOPers who go to Congress are just not prepared for the fight-at-all-times attitude of the Democrats. I dont thikn their life expereiences give them skills to handle that environment.

I'm from Chicago, so I have no idea what it's like to live somewhere with functioning Republicans. So that is my impression from the TV.

Bob| 1.3.09 @ 8:32AM

John, I see that you have still not completed the mathematical trend/event analysis of Palin's effect on the McCain ticket. Perhaps you shy away from such an analysis because it will disprove your point. I would hope you know how to do such an analysis.

Since one of my undergraduate degrees was in mathematics, I always complete a non-biased analysis based upon the actual data. With politics, I've found that a trend/event analysis is the most explanatory. I've noticed that most writers/bloggers have liberal arts backgrounds and make their arguments based upon selected data rather than objective analysis. You seem to have done the same thing. You cannot accomplish an objective mathematical analysis of the Palin data and possibly believe she is the solution. What I hear mostly is the limited information that the McCain poll bounced up when she was selected. However, this was based upon her initial image. Only if you analyze the events that followed, can you determine what people thought of her when they were exposed to her performance. Again, do the analysis. If you don't know how to do it, let me know.

Regarding a positive agenda for the party, I'm still a fan of pragmatic conservatism. We should stay away from the religious issues that divide us, and put forth conservative alternatives to such things as the stimulus based upon a set of pragmatic principles. For example, one of them could be fiscal efficiency. Rather than vote for projects based upon their salability, we should how much each of these projects will return to the people. The projects with the greatest fiscal return are the ones we should support even if they might disagree with the current ideology. The money we get from the electorate is a trust and the people should get the most from their tax dollars. We would obviously vote down any pork and institute oversight and management of vendors. Next, we should concentrate on BALANCED regulation -- regulate where there is a tendency for private industry to take advantage of people's assets but insure that overregulation does not inhibit business.

There are a great number of pragmatic conservatism concepts that make sense and have crossover appeal.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.3.09 @ 9:43AM

Barack Obama won by 6 million votes. That means that only a little over 3 million voters out of all the votes cast needed to be persuaded to change their minds to change the outcome of the election.

That's not a disaster and should be easy to overcome. The Republican Party made a great mistake in elevating a Washingtonian to be their candidate.

McCain is the ultimate insider, protecting the assets of the inside the beltway crowd.

Any feeble issue of the left is not to feeble for the feeble John McCain to feebishly grasp and promote.

Any number of issues endorsed by McCain indicated he was bound to lose. Climate change, nanny endorsed health care and a predilection to provide amnesty for lawbreakers vis a vis an immigration bailout all indicated that McCain had nothing to offer.

Yet , the Republicans marched on behind their candidate. McCain set standards of stupidity and idiocy in a campaign that may never be matched.
The McCain insistence on silly things, like not using Barack's middle name, which will now be used during the Obama swearing in regalia, and his suspension of his campaign, made him look like he had a backbone of linguine, and was busy orchestrating his own McCain mutiny.

Even after all that and more, McCain lost by a little over 3 million votes.

If the Republican Party had run Mitt Romney they would most likely would have won, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But for some wacky reason, they nominated the wascally John McCain, who lurched around like a burnt scorpion, never staying on message.

Perhaps it was his staff who contributed to his demise, but any political party who can't reach 3 million more people with a message of individualism over government doesn't deserve to succeed.

Bob| 1.3.09 @ 10:30AM

Robert, please, let's use objective analysis rather than emotions. While I was also a Romney supporter, the likelihood that he would have done better than McCain is small. According to the polling data, there were three major factors in McCain's loss -- he was seen to be too much like Bush, Palin turned off women and crossover voters, and Obama was seen to be better at dealing with the economy. Demeaning Obama by using his middle name, calling him a terrorist, calling him an Alinskyite, etc., only helped him as the vast majority of people saw him as a good father, cool under pressure, well educated, and pragmatic.

Romney's big mistake was changing positions on many major issues to appeal to social conservatives. He should not have changed, run on his record and run on his ability to steward the economy. Besides, he's not exciting and does not give passionate speeches.

Republicans should be especially sensitive to the demonization of their opponents. While the Republican faithful likes that, it is a turn off to Democrats and independents and makes Republicans look small and mean.

Furthermore, the intolerance of many social conservatives hurts in drawing in young, black, and Hispanic voters -- the growing populations.

I also believe the "anti-intellectual" orientation of the Republican party today is something that hurts the party. Most of the electorate is tired of presidents like Bush who can't put together a coherent thought and brags about how poorly he did in school. In the end, most people want bright, well educated, successful people as President.

There are very few Republicans who fill this void. One of them with great promise is Bobby Jindal. He said he won't run for president in 2012 which is very smart since Obama is a shoe-in. I also like Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. He has a degree in economics and has some good fiscal ideas.

aware| 1.3.09 @ 11:27AM

Bob... your "mathematical trend/event analysis" reminds me of a junior officer before the Seven Days battles who's mathematical analysis showed how McClellan's siege of Richmond must succeed. To which Lee replied "Stop, if you go on ciphering we shall be lost before we do anything."
As I have said before, the problem with moderates is your willingness to accept and even add to BIG government. I just don't understand how you can think "fiscal efficiency" is even possible in a welfare state. Why don't you use your analytical talents on finding just one case when that ever happened.
It can't happen for the simple reason that the purpose of the welfare state is NOT to help the poor or oppressed or even the taxpayer. Oh yes this does happen, but only to maintain the pretense(pay no heed to the man behind the curtain). It exists for the sole purpose of insuring the reelections of professional politicians of both parties who then expand and add more power to the government to the detriment of individual freedom.
Unfortunately, I come to the conclusion that modern conservatism is either not up to the task of really rolling back the massive State or it doesn't want to. What good are "tax cuts" when new agencies create new regulations so that they can then collect new "fines" that actually amount to an INCREASE in State revenue, which of course, is then used to finance even bigger government. This is how "fiscal" conservatives are manipulated. And what good is "upholding traditional values" when it will require the creation of new agencies and bureaucrats to do the upholding . This is how "social" conservatives are manipulated. When the result is bigger and more powerful government I have trouble reconciling this with the rhetoric of "small" government conservatives.
So the moderates would suggest if you can't beat 'um join 'um by somehow promising more "efficient" wine and circuses to the mob. Then we will be rewarded with more"victories" and, sadly, this is probably true.
One thing is for sure in this kind of political environment, there won't be any victories for individual freedom and liberty.

Phesoge | 1.3.09 @ 11:44AM

Uhh Paul Ryan voted for both bailouts which was disgusting. Although he has had some novel idea like his Road Map for Americas Future, and The Price Stabilization Act which would maybe bring some transparency to that vile thing we call the federal reserve who have effectivcely destroyed our dollar; his support for both bail outs was a true slap in the face to fiscal conservatives. Those who advocate freedom from the state like true conservatives shall should remember that freedom to fail is a critical aspect of freedom and should of been realized before we passed the two horrendous bail outs.
"a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of indsutry and improvement"
-Thomas Jefferson

Pat| 1.3.09 @ 12:09PM

Within a few short weeks, we'll have a Democrat as president to go along with a Democratic majority within the Senate and the House. And for the next 8 years, Republicans will rationalize failure, analyzing motivations, dissecting the election numbers, contemplating their navels and finding enlightenment in belly-button lint.

Rationalizing failure - an interesting process whereby the loser finds comfort and hope through enumerating all the supposed reasons for the loss. Psychologically, there is little difference between sophisticated Republican apologists and a team of 7 year olds who collectively claim the other team were "cheaters" or the refs made bad calls because they didn't "like" the losing team. The end result is always an attempt to restore hope in the rationalizer by re-interpreting reality, not an honest search for the reasons underlying the failure.

And the process invariably reinforces the supposition there is nothing wrong with the rationalizer, it's the other "fella" who is in the wrong, the other fella who won by luck, or by cheating or by underhanded tactics entirely within the rules but morally suspect.

A government controlled by the Democrats, sanctioned by a majority of the voters. If that's the reality, and some will even deny that reality, then what lessons can be learned? Perhaps it's the Democrats who should be asked to comment, to analyze, to rationalize success, not the same tired Republican apologists. Or perhaps, Conservatism as a motivating force is on the wane - our American culture in an unstoppable transition, moving away from the principles that once guided our nation. Taking refuge in rationalizations is one alternative, and an alternative highly prized among some Conservatives - but at the end of the day, a Democrat as president, a Democratic majority in the Senate and House.

Tim| 1.3.09 @ 12:40PM

Regardless of the economic melt down,
If 9-11 doesn't happen,. there is no Obama 2008 presidency because there would have been no wars being fought.

That is a no brainer.

If some of the Republican politicians, didn't act like their political foes there is no Demoratic majority in congress in 2008 or 2009.

They say a week is a light year in the world of politics.

So, all will be cozy and fuzzy in the Democratville until of course the next heavy brick filled shoe falls.

By then, my guess is that the winds of political change will swirl strongly once again and round and round we go.....keeping hope alive while the conservative working class keeps taking it up the gazzoo!

Happy new year to all!

Bob| 1.3.09 @ 1:45PM

Aware, I actually agree with most of what you said. However, I've never known a general that didn't look at the facts before he made his decision how, or if, to use them. Whey they decide to move away from the facts, the great general do that knowingly. What bothers me, is that most ideological Republicans don't do the analysis at all.

With regard to big government, we must put this in financial terms. Social security and medicare account for about 53% of federal spending. The military accounts for another 20% while interest is now reaching 10%. That means only 17% goes towards foreign policy, HEW, HUD, FTC, FAA, NASA, and everything else. If you don't understand that perspective, your attempt to make government smaller is just a waste of time since it will only have psychological, and not physical impact.

What is at fault here is the "low taxes" ideal of we Republicans. Supply side economics has not worked if you look at the growth of GDP and of the Debt during Republican administrations. When you don't tie low taxes to low spending, nothing works. In fact, Reagan and Bush have accounted for more debt than all of the other Presidents combined.

When you have your family or business budget to consider, you look at the bottom line. I think Republicans/conservatives should do the same. Our moniker should not be low taxes, it should be "pay as you go". It is highly political and easy to get people to go for lower taxes, but difficult to get them to cut spending. Republicans are guilty of separating the two. We must put them back together. If it is worth the spending, then we must raise taxes to pay for it. That's the only way that people will feel the pain of spending. If they don't feel the pain of lower taxes, they won't respond to lower spending. Why not have it all????

Republicans should support a balanced budget initiative -- something a fiscally responsible party should do. It probably won't happen because it will put real fiscal responsibility on the shoulders of our elected officials, but it should be done. No more "low taxes" nonsense. All lower taxes have done is mortgage the future of our country to our children who will never be able to pay.

vincep1974| 1.3.09 @ 2:54PM

Tim: One of the things I'm very upset at the GOP for is this: They know all the problems we're facing in the world are very serious, and so they should have done everything in their power to ensure they weren't getting the voters to be very upset with them.. (Everything they can in a positive way. not resort to anything immoral)

instead they aliented the GOP base and the rest of the country.. and now the Democrats are in power and the trojan horse is president.

aware| 1.3.09 @ 4:22PM

Bob...I don't see that a balanced budget intuitive can be anything but another sham because the Federal Reserve can continue to do its job of hiding the true cost of Federal spending. This it accomplishes by manipulating the money supply and borrowing, not to mention some dubious accounting practices. And remember, this monster now, thanks to Bush's "economic" team, controls more of the private market than ever before. Even more galling when you realize THEY had the biggest role in making this "crisis" happen!
Your posts strike me as intelligent and your opinions well-reasoned so I put it to you...I'm not interested in shutting down the various shell games that the Fed runs. Nor making them more efficient and "fair". I maintain that the size and scope of the Federal state is the clearest threat to our prosperity and our posterity. The existence of a 1200 lb gorilla in the room is bound to lead to something bad. I want it made back into the chimpanzee it started out as, if that's possible.
No meaningful change can happen while the Feds have the power to skew the data, make the rules, and determine the outcome . And then prop up the losers with proceeds taken from the winners.
But even the State's deep pockets have a bottom so I wonder what the consequences will be when the bottom is reached? It may be time for us to seriously consider that.
And I'm just talking about the economic idiocy of Too Big Government, but we know there are many areas where the pernicious hand of the State is at work with the same degree of knowledge and efficiency. All of this will not have a happy ending.

Bob| 1.3.09 @ 4:37PM

Aware, at some juncture, we must "feel the pain". I believe you start with junking the "low tax" plank, which has never worked, and move to balancing the budget. Yes, that will cause some pain, but it needs to occur. The Fed can inject money, but these are "loans" and are of limited use. The TARP funds have no such limitation and are a true bailout. The bailouts have not worked because all they injected was enough capital to stay afloat. I'm in favor of limiting/stopping the bailouts and moving towards a free market solution with more regulation and capital requirements. This will limit leverage on Wall Street. It was as high as 30 to 1 and should be reduced to the 2 to 1 range. This will stop speculation in its tracks and make the free market work better. Furthermore, all loan originators should be requires to keep at least 20% of the risk for the loans they produce. They will be far more careful in producing loans if they keep a significant portion of the risk. Now, they can completely securitize it. So, what I back is a free market accompanied by more regulation and "skin in the game".

Aside from the anti-Keynesian trolls here at AmSpec, selected stimulus can help ease the recession. It is not a solution, but it will keep more people employed and slow down the economic decline. Remember that 70% of our economy is consumption so if people see that things are not as bad, they may spend more and thus help the economy.

The think I worry most about with the Fed is not the money supply, but the attitude Greenspan had by pushing easy money and thus inflaming speculation.

We must start somewhere -- and for me it is balanced budgets and free markets accompanied by regulation to limit leverage.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.3.09 @ 5:17PM

To Bob: I only mentioned Mitt Romney as a successful alternative to the complete and abject failure that was John McCain. In doing so, I do not promote Mitt Romney, simply mention an alternative to show how easy it would have been to turn this election. That is not an emotional observation, that is a mathematical fact.

In the meantime you claim that America simply votes for intelligence and candidates that can string more then two words together.

I mention two words that were strung together. Hope and change. That got someone elected and appears to blow your theory to smithereens.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.3.09 @ 5:30PM

Bob: You claim that Reagan and Bush spent more then all other Presidents combined. Which Bush do you refer to? If it's George W. Bush that is true. But then you can turn to Clinton and claim he spent almost as much or as all Presidents before him, raising the National Debt from 1.9 trillion, to 3.8 trillion upon leaving office. There never was a Clinton surplus. That's simply a fairy tale that the media loves to spin. The point is that every President who comes to office will continue to see the debt rise, since government programs and agencies are never held to standards, and they simply continue to grow, like some out of control blob. For anyone interested you can verify those figures at the Bureau of Public Debt.

OCPatriot | 1.3.09 @ 6:45PM

And who will pay for all those services that everybody wants, with what taxes or profits. Lowering the income tax rates, time and again, hasn't proven to invigorate the economy; it only helps those who have a lot, so if the Republican / Conservative base is rich and has a lot, it might help them; but it has never stimulated the economy. "Back to grass roots" is old thinking, old ideas, and most of your article doesn't reflect much thinking about economics, only about organizing; ironically enough, a kind of Conservative community organizers' handbook, just what Obama was criticvized for and is now being proposed. Come on, guys, where is the original thinking that truly can lift us out of the mire we're in, the new programs, ideas that will help recoup our portfolios and retirement funds, the money we've lost, the crisis in manufacturing? Not a word about it that makes any sense. What you've proposed is a way to continue to lose voters and party membership. Let's hear some new thinking. Why do you think intelligent people like Buckley have abandoned ship?

Jeff| 1.3.09 @ 7:04PM

aware wrote:

"freedom is the ability to make my own choices and live with the effects of those choices without any interference and to have that ability to its maximum degree so long as it does not infringe on anyone else. "

I assume then that you support a woman's right to choose and a person's right to marry whom they choose?

If you answer in the negative, you have given a perfect example of what is wrong with the Republican party. They shout about "rights" as long as they determine what they are. Let me promise you something that is certainly true: Your judgement is not superior to mine yesterday, today or tomorrow. Now, get out of my life and let me have my "freedom".

Bob| 1.3.09 @ 7:15PM

Robert, here is a graph of the national debt -- you can come to your own conclusions:

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Like I said, most people just choose selected data that favors their point and really don't know how to do analysis anymore.

By the way, since GDP is a way to measure economic growth, you should also look at this graph:

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230

What you'll see is that the economic policies of administrations have little to do with real economic growth -- that is more of a function of private enterprise.

It is not economically sound just to look at spending since that includes inflation, the value of the dollar, bubbles, etc. You should always look at the bottom line which is the end result of economic policy.

Furthermore, hope and change was just the slogan -- you vote for the man.

Jeff| 1.3.09 @ 7:33PM

I must comment regarding the Sarah Palin supporters.

Sarah Palin is a good woman, who has over-acheived. But please understand that she is in no way qualified to be President of the United States.

Republicans tend to shy away from intellectualism and new ideas. Joe the Plumber is not knowledgeable about economics or about political philsophies nor will he ever be without serious study. Sarah Palin, just because Russia can be seen from a small island off the coast of Alaska (she has never been there), is not knowledgeable about foreign affairs. She has never travelled to Europe. Her college degree is in journalism, she has never seriously studied American law, the constitution or political science. We need candidates who are knowledgeable about the world and world politics to be an effective leader. She will not out-manuever Putin in direct negotiations. Be real!

Sarah Palin is a good person, but she would not make a good president.

aware| 1.3.09 @ 7:43PM

Bob... I must admit that I consider the Austrian economic theory to have far more validity than Keynes, so I come from that perspective.
No matter what kind of "stimulus" package you want, if it is administered by the State there are only three ways to get the money for it . Tax for it, borrow it, or print it.
None of these things actually creates capital. Taxing merely takes money that would have been used in private consumption and investments and uses it for public spending, redirects if you will.
Borrowing is getting harder to do in the time of colossal public debt, and besides it amounts to nothing but a promise to do the first option at a future date.
Printing is fast becoming the only "weapon" left to snatch at and I can only hope that even rabid Keynesians understand none of its consequences can be called good.
None of this creates wealth. The essential fatal flaw in accepting State control in the economy is this, the State can never make an economic decision that is not controlled by politics. Indeed, with the State, politics is sometimes the only consideration.
This all comes back to the inescapable fact that vesting the power, willingly or unwillingly, in the Fed to "regulate" the free market in this case amounted to The Fed renting the hotel room, where it then invited all its rowdy friends(bankers, stockbrokers, developers, real estate speculators , and so forth) to do what they do. And now, thanks to the Fed, the taxpayer is on the hook for repairing the trashed room.
It's not just wrong to expect borrowing more money to fix what borrowed money caused, it's completely insane.
And I'm having trouble understanding how you "regulate" your way to a free market. All this money and effort by government is trying to prevent corrections that have needed to happen because of malinvestment and as such is working against, not for, what is needed. It is doing this for political,not economical, considerations.
An implosion of this magnitude is not possible without State participation, especially as instigator.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.3.09 @ 8:07PM

Bob: You're avoiding responding, which is not surprising since you're statement doesn't hold water. You keep referring to quantitative analysis like it is something only you understand,

I got my figures from the Bureau of Public Debt and trust them more then anything you can provide. Their figures are based on actual government debt, not some pretend chart someone throws together to prove their point, which may be in error.

If you have better figures then the Bureau of Public Debt please form your own government or inform the Bureau of Public Debt their figures are not as good as your figures.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.3.09 @ 8:09PM

Aware: Your comment is a good analysis of what is wrong is what the government is doing with the bailouts.

john smithson | 1.4.09 @ 2:10AM

"John, I see that you have still not completed the mathematical trend/event analysis of Palin's effect on the McCain ticket" so says Bob (1-3-09 @8:32am above)

And John [that would be me] is wondering just where this point of attack came from. Surely you know there is no trend analysis possible with regard to an unique event. But hey ! I must be wrong because you have obviously completed one. Where can we go to view the results? I would be most interested in the data apart from the conclusions - you know, that part of your analysis that is "unbiased."

What you completely miss about the so-called "Palin effect" is the fact that she was brought into the McCain campaign for one reason and one reason only - to deliver the core constituency of the GOP - the hated Evangelicals. That is exactly what she did. McCain would have lost by 15 pts instead of 6 without Sarah Palin. McCain thought he could attrack the "moderate" vote and, together, he and Palin could win the election. What McCain ignored was the fact that somewhere between 2 and 3 million had decided not to vote at all (and we are talking about GOP voters) while another 9% of the 45 - 64 aged crowd voting for Bush in both elections decided to protest the liberal takeover of the GOP and became part of the "crossover" vote in this election.

The "enthusiasm gap" was profoundly different for the two candidates, as well. Nearly 34% were every excited about B.O. while less than 14% were excited for McDud. Common sense tells us that you simply cannot have that low a number without appreciating a radical depreciation in voter support.

Finally, your implicit notion that "pragmatism" is the key to political success for the GOP makes you nearly as qualitified an analyst as McCain was a candidate. While you decry emotion, the fact is there can be no political success whatsoever without exciting the voting public. And pragmatism is not going to get it done. Personalities win elections, Bob, and that is precisely why I am not concerned about this one. The Dems have only one electable personality and he just won. In 2010, the first timers, the college vote and the extremely biased Black vote will not be at the polls as they were this election. And if the Dems move too fast to the left, they will run themselves right out of power, ala 1994.

Where can we all go to read your analysis? You can send an e-mail copy to jsjohnnt@aol.com. And, indeed, if I need help in the reading of this paper, I will definitedly ask you for help. Thanks for the offer. The sincerity of your offer almost overwhelmed me.

John Smithson
http://midknightreview.blogspot.com/

john smithson| 1.4.09 @ 2:28AM

Robert Rosencrans | 1.3.09 @ 9:43AM wrote about the election results and the potential of the swing vote. Good points.

If I might add one thing to what Robert presented, it is this: With a swing of just 49 electoral votes, McDud would have won. Sooo, those of you who are just spectators on this American Spectator site, get a clue before you make your arguments.

And Michael L. Hauschild, I believe the RNC has a training course. If anyone is interested, check this out: Republican National Committee Political Education Department
(202) 863-8600 – politicaleducation@rnc.org

A brief synopsis of courses offered:

Topics presented during a CMC include, but are not limited to:
Budgets, BCRA/Campaign Law, Messaging, Survey Research, Research, Voter Files, Targeting,
Staffing/Hiring/Firing, Earned Media, Working with and Hiring Consultants, Scheduling, Television,
Radio, Phones, Voter Contact Mail, Fundraising Mail, PACs, Events, 72 Hour/GOTV, Internet,
Topics presented during a NMC include, but are not limited to:
Key elements of a web site; social networking; mobile / sms messaging; blogging; online video;
online advertising; how to build an e-mail list; opposition research online; and a panel of experts
who use the internet for electoral purposes on a daily basis. (source: http://net.gop.com/CampaignColleges/CampCol2009.pdf )

John Smithson

Michael L. Hauchild| 1.4.09 @ 6:42AM

You seem like a nice guy and the “thwap” sound you provide when dealing with Bob’s hyperbole is music to my ears but using the RNC websites as a learning tool is akin to asking the NEA for advice on evaluating student performance. The only thing that is proficient and reliable about the RNC is their franking of campaign solicitations.

Michael L. Hauschild| 1.4.09 @ 8:28AM

Things to do today:

1) Figure out a way to pry Bob’s lips off of my posterior, which will be difficult because I am only ten times as smart as Sarah Palin. (CHECK)
2) Acknowledge and encourage John Smithson to continue his political quest for many of the principles I believe in. (CHECK)
3) Demonize the NEA and RNC. (CHECK)

Thanks for all the positive feedback. I will be away for a few days meeting with my family making decisions about “Advance Medical Directives” for my dad.

Bob| 1.4.09 @ 8:50AM

Robert, it was not a unique event, it was a series of events -- and that's where you miss the boat. If you really know how to do analysis, then you'd recognize the validity of of a series of events on a trend chart. Let me make it simple for you, take the RCP polling average trends from here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Mark these dates on the trend chart:

Sarah Palin chosen: August 29, 2008
Gibson interview: September 11, 2008
Couric interview: September 24, 2008

(If you run your cursor over the graph, you can find the exact day)

Remember that this polling trend data is based on a rolling three day average which doesn't give the full effect of an event for 3 days. This should take you less than 2 minutes to do. If you are not lazy, you will see that this analysis is iron clad.

With regard to the zfacts chart, the data is from the government U.S. Budget historical table, they are not made up. Here is the wiki which also graphs it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

I chose the zfacts graph because it is annotated by President. Please notice that this is also a trend/event analysis. The problem with your specific data is that it disregards the data surrounding it and, as anyone trained in analysis knows, will lead to erroneous conclusions. Graphing the data is the only way to get an unbiased result. Politicians and commentators often use partial information to make a point even if that information is biased.

Lastly, there is no way that either of us knows what the election result would have been if McCain had chosen someone else. You have made the argument one way. The other side of the coin is that the hard core Republicans who supported McCain would not have voted for Obama with, or without Palin. Furthermore, if McCain had chosen Romney and the economy was a major issue, he might have helped more than Palin. The data does show that the Palin bump was primarily comprised of Hillary voters who were heavily women -- not hard core Republicans. Approximately 30% of Hillary voters moved to McCain when he chose Palin. In the end, however, they almost all moved back to Obama. This occurred PRECISELY at the Gibson and Couric interviews. Therefore, in the end, the only way that McCain benefited by selecting Palin is if she brought out more Republicans to vote. Considering the right wing hatred of Obama, I doubt if that is the case and hence cannot believe she added to McCain at all.

Now we'll see whether you are really as objective as you claim to be or just another ideologue who disregards fact just to make a point.

Having spent a lifetime doing objective data analysis, I lament the fact that the American public has lost the capability to do effective analyses for themselves. Instead, they've substituted the biased blather of ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.4.09 @ 3:57PM

Bob: It is becoming clear that you don't understand quantitative analysis or budget figures, and frankly, you sound like a typical D.C. politician, i.e., "My facts are better then your facts"

You stated that Bush and Reagan spent more then all other Presidents combined and that's only true if you're referring to George W. Bush. But what's the point of that? You could say the same thing about Reagan and Clinton, etc., etc.

The facts are the Bureau of Public Debt has the correct figures of the debt under each President and they are accurate and show you are absolutely incorrect.

As far as the Mitt Romney issue, that wasn't the point. The point was the election was decided by a little over 3 million votes and perhaps someone else could have easily swayed those votes.

I don't buy into the popular consensus that Obama is indestructible.

Bob| 1.4.09 @ 4:46PM

Robert, you must learn how to do analysis and the use of graphical data. First of all, I didn't talk about SPENDING, I spoke about DEBT. But you must be able to read, I guess, to understand that. Secondly, the numbers I showed ARE FROM THE GOVERNMENT. They were adjusted to normalize for GDP because inflation/dollar value affects the real dollars. THEY ARE FROM THE SAME SOURCE THAT YOU USED.

Now, if want to do your simple minded analysis based on non-normalized numbers, then please go to the Bureau of Public Debt site. Under Reagan, the debt grew from 908 billion to 1694 billion. With Bush, it grew from 5674 to 10024. That's a total growth under Reagan Bush of 6044 billion dollars or roughly 60% of the total debt.

The fact that you don't understand quantitative analysis is not my problem, it is yours. The fact that you don't understand measurements in normalized dollars vs. inflated dollars is also your problem. The importance of using both Reagan and Bush2 is that theoretically they utilized supply side dynamics. The point is that supply side economics has caused more than half of all of the debt we owe.

By the way, I never said that Obama is indestructible. However, historically, looking at FDR, he doesn't have to be successful and bringing back the economy, only that he try to make lives better for the middle class. Bush will be seen as "Hoover". Thus, beating Obama in 2012 will be even more difficult than beating him in 2008.

John Smithson| 1.4.09 @ 7:48PM

Bobby , Bobby, Bobby (1/4 - 8.50am) - lets be nice, alright? Look, the last time I noticed, a trend is a projection based on known influences. Your referenced chart is nothing more than a flow chart showing the relative popularity of Obama and McCain during the campaign cycle. It makes no pretense at relating specific events to the progression captured on this chart. YOU are the one who has attached meaning to the ups and down of the chart, not those who created the chart. But two can play this game, Mr Trendmeister. Here is the Gospel According to John: On Aug 29, Palin is chosen but her acceptance speech is on Sept 2nd. If the chart records a positive response to Palin, it does so immediately, not 3 days after the fact as you suggest and the rise is the single biggest rise on the chart. On Oct 2, we have the Biden/Palin debate and if the chart presents a response to that event, once again, is was mildly positive for the Governor. There is no appreciable effect for or against Palin's interview with Couric. On the chart, we have a fairly drastic down-turn for McCain beginning on the 21-22 of Sept, 3 days following the first early voting event and the beginning of the shameful push by the Major Media for an Obama victory. If anything, the chart at this point, shows the power of a Biased Media.

What was that you were saying about things being iron clad? Now, I am not saying that my interpretation of the FLOW CHART is correct, but I am saying that my analysis is as righteous as yours -- actually a little more to the historical facts of the matter.

If I were Robert, I would just smile when being criticized by one who does not know the difference between flow charts and trend analysis. Rock on Robert. I have found that when an opponent begins to get a bit testy, it usually means he senses the deficiencies in his argument or he is taking life much to seriously.

I just said "rock on" and I am 63. Yikes.

John Smithson

Bob| 1.5.09 @ 7:23AM

Robert, please, I may be a kid to you at 61, but I can tell nonsense when I see it. First of all, McCain's big rise occurred September 5th-7th -- a slight lag as I have indicated after Palin's speech. So you are clearly wrong here. Look at the chart again, and this time be more careful how you place the cursor over the date. Perhaps you need a higher resolution monitor?

Next, the chart clearly shows a huge drop from September 24th-27th -- just following the Couric interview. Again, you need to learn how to read graphs. I see we agree on the drop for the Gibson interview. You said the drop for McCain started on 9/21. It didn't. It started on 9/24 -- it reached a high on 9/23. Again, your monitor may not be of high enough resolution --- or your eyes are starting to fail you.

So, Robert, you have proved my point that you do not know how to read graphs properly. And you should learn how a 3-day rolling average affects the data. Like I said, ideologues have a difficult time facing fact.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.5.09 @ 7:54AM

Bob: You're simply talking in circles, claiming or implying that spending is not debt. I suspect liberalism is at the heart of your obfuscation. Spending is not debt? That type of philosophy is how we got to where we are in America.

No, debt is debt and that's what they have on display at the Bureau of Public Debt. It shows clearly that Clinton spent almost 2 trillion in 8 years. That was more public debt then all previous Presidents combined. It shows that Reagan was the last President where the National Debt was under 1 trillion when he left office.

You keep using the term quantitative analysis like it means something you alone understand. You somehow seem to believe that others can't deduce the facts unless you alone provide them. Interesting to say the least.

Let's turn to another subject today. Megalomania. Look it up.

By the way, Bob, I never said anything about Sarah Palin one way or the other. You have me confused with someone else. Perhaps in your zeal to read charts and graphs, you've failed to learn how to read simple posts and differentiate between those posts.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.5.09 @ 7:56AM

John Smithson: Thank you for your wonderful comments. Thought for the day.

"A well reasoned man is welcome everywhere, but rarely listened to anywhere."

Bob| 1.5.09 @ 8:25AM

Robert, yes I had confused you with John. However, let me explain normalization this way. What was the average cost of a car in 1980 versus 2008? A dollar's worth of debt in 1980 is equal to almost $3 worth of debt today. So if you want to compare Presidents on an equal basis, the data must be normalized. I understand you don't understand normalization or analysis -- you've proven that. I am increasingly amused at ideologues inability to look at facts if they conflict with ideology.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.5.09 @ 9:27AM

Bob: You talk about what a dollar is worth in 1980 and about normalization in your figures. Congratulations! You continue to prove my point that you simply talk in circles and I wish you the best at that. I think that if anyone looks at the figures of the Bureau of Public Debt they will see the facts. Facts are not normalized. They are facts. As far as being confused you continue to paint yourself into a corner. If that's what you do for fun, I am with you on that.

Bob| 1.5.09 @ 9:37AM

Robert, I suggest you take a course in macro-economics to learn how to do an analysis in real dollars. What you claim is that a dollar in 1980 is equal to a dollar in 2008. Your statement that "facts are not normalized" is truly pedestrian and idiotic on its face. In point of fact, you cannot do an economic analysis without normalization. Please talk with one of your friends that understands economic analysis.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.5.09 @ 11:34AM

Bob: I suggest you talk to your friends, that is if you have any, about normal discourse and not always trying to one up people. It makes you look small, at least smaller than the term quantitative analysis. Now go do some more economic quantitative analysis so you can respond.

Bob| 1.5.09 @ 12:59PM

I see, Robert, that you revert to an attack not related to the subject matter. Let me explain why I don't utilize "normal discourse" here -- it doesn't work, I tried. One of the problems with our politics and government today is that there is a strong emphasis towards "anti-intellectualism". We are in an economic crisis yet few people know enough about analysis (which you learn in school). Being knowledgeable about facts/data and knowing how to use that information should be a base from which we can have "normal dialogue". If you can't do that, then the discussion breaks down along ideological lines and nothing ever gets decided or accomplished.

It is factually correct that supply side economics as implemented by the Reagan/Bush/Bush administrations, did not work. It raised the debt more than any other administrations. When you normalize the data, you find that is worked just as poorly in Reagan's administration as it did with Bush2. Why? Because they simply lowered taxes and could not lower spending. I don't know about you, but it angers me that we put this burden on our children and grandchildren. That is NOT what fiscal conservatism and limited government should stand for. In addition, Reagan and Bush2 expanded government more than most administrations. Yet we hold up Reagan as one of the great Presidents.

Then we come to the nonsense about Sarah Palin. She was a drain on the McCain ticket -- not a help -- and for those of us who understand how to do proper analysis, it is simply a fact, not a supposition. She was, perhaps, the most unknowledgeable VP candidate in history -- and if you don't get it by now, I'm big on having knowledge and intelligence.

You and John are simply wrong on the use of data and the sad fact is that neither of you understand -- or are willing to understand. John can't properly read a graph and you don't understand normalization of economic data.

So if I seem frustrated, I am. I want a better country and believe in secular conservative principles, and want to see Republicans effective at their use. I don't want to leave more debt for my progeny.

You worry about me looking small, and I worry about Republicans looking dumb and ideological. Obviously, normal discourse will not get through to you guys, so I insult you -- as I should.

If you respond with good counter arguments, then the insults will go away. But if you continue to maintain that a dollar in 1980 is the same as a dollar in 2008, then I can only conclude you lack knowledge.

Robert Rosencrans| 1.5.09 @ 2:54PM

Bob: Go buy yourself a coloring book. Then use it to connect the dots.

Bob| 1.5.09 @ 4:01PM

Robert: Any coloring book recommendations? I know that's where you get your facts....

Robert Rosencrans| 1.5.09 @ 4:15PM

Bob: You have a point. It's a fact that no one will ever get any facts from you or a straight answer.

john smithson| 1.5.09 @ 4:18PM

Bob. Your 12.59 post is disappointing. You write these words : "If you respond with good counter arguments, then the insults will go away" as if your admitted insults are designed [by yourself] to be some kind of deterrent to arguments base upon supposed ignorance. Now, maybe that works with your wife and kids, assuming of course, that you have dared to reproduce, but I would imagine that your immediate family would be the outer limits to the effectiveness of such nonsensical behavior.

Lets look at your recent post. You pit "ideological" against your own brand of argumentation and, apparently, think you have accomplished rhetorical jihad. So much for point #1 in your post.

Your second paragraph is problematic on a several level. First, it seems to claim that supply side economics is a politically conservative idea when, in fact, the term was coined by Robert Mundell, a Canadian economist in the mid-1970's.
"Trickle down" (emphasis on "trickle") is the oppositions characterization of this well-established set of economic principles. The counter to this approach appears to be a concept that can only be typified with the phrase "trickle up economics." Sounds so more professional, right? “Trickle up economics.” Yes, by Jove, I think we have it !!

Politically speaking, it [trickle down] has been used twice - once under Reagan and again under Bush 43. Both times the increase in revenues via taxable income actually went up substantially. In the Reagan era, for example, tax revenues doubled while the top-tier tax rate was reduced from 70% to 28%. Revenues were not the problem in either administration - spending was the problem. All that needs to happen with regard to the abolishment of deficit spending is this: reduce the RATE of spending increase below that of income increase. Since income levels continue to rise, so too will spending but, in time, the debt will begin to decrease, as well.

And, Bob, what is this business of "normalizing the dollar" ? Sounds like something you made up (once again). You can adjust the dollar for inflation. Yes. but "normalization the dollar." Now, I am sure that you learned this in school, since you went to school - give me a reference for your use of this term. Thanks in advance.

#3 - you assert that we are wrong in our analysis of your referenced FLOW CHART. I made an argument for my point of view and you have chosen to ignore it rather than deal with it. I rest my case.

And what exactly are "secular conservative principles" ?? I do believe that the conservative political agenda should not reflect a particular religious agenda. But I am a non-typical Evangelical Fundamentalist - emphasis on non-typical. I am anti-abortion because I believe an unborn "fetus" is a human being. Call be stupid.
I am anti-gay marriage because I am pro free speech. I live in California. Without Prop 8, it will be against the law to speak out against homosexuality and the heterophobs win - again. I am a Federalist Conservative, as well. I dislike the notion that Ted Kennedy and John McCain and Susan Collins and Arlen Specter get to make decisions about my life and conduct and I have nothing to say about it. I have much more to say in a political system that features local politics. I think that is a good thing. I am pro-gun ownership and in fact, I will never relinquish my in-house shotgun. I am anti - killing people but I am even more anti-people killing me. Go figure, right? I believe in spending that leaves a surplus. Isn't it funny how this works quite well for the family, the church, city government, county government and state government but is considered an "anti-intellectual" idea on the national level. Our Social Security system has a 12 trillion dollar unfunded liability tagged against its viability but Clinton “ balanced” the budget each of the last four years of his administration. Nonsense. Your argument with Robert about "debt" and "spending" was a mystery to me. "Debt" is the reality. "Spending too much" is how you get there. Isn't that what Robert was saying?

Here's an interesting fact. Most of us have no clue as to how much a "trillion" is. I have forgotten my source, but here is the picture: start counting out loud 1 . 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 (and whatever comes after "7" - Bob will know that one since Robert and myself have probably run out of numbers at this point) and do not stop until you get to "one trillion." It will take you 32, 000 years to get there ! Anybody actually think we are going to ever pay off our National Debt?

John Smithson
Hats off to "aware" and several others on this forum. and Michael L. Hauschild dad, well , I hope things are well with him.

Bob| 1.5.09 @ 5:10PM

John, it would be nice if you could deal with facts. Here is a graph of federal government revenues and spending over the last 40 years. Perhaps you can show me where the Reagan administration increased revenues substantially more than anyone else. By the way, the source is the Federal Government. Again, you are using rhetoric, not analysis.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/features/budgetchartbook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-C1-Federal-Spending-Is-Growing.html

Secondly, your analysis was wrong because you didn't read the McCain polling graph properly. The days you chose were not the days shown on the graph. Please have someone help you with this. I indicated in my posts where your days were off, but I can't do much if you can't read the graphs correctly. Specifically, the largest McCain declines came after the Gibson and Couric interviews. Again, get someone to help you read the charts.

Regarding normalization, I give you this reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_(statistics)

Specifically, I am using this to describe "referring to the division of multiple sets of data by a common variable in order to negate that variable's effect on the data, thus allowing underlying characteristics of the data sets to be compared." The two normalization factors would be the value of the dollar or debt in relation to GDP. This takes the effect of the value of the dollar out of the equation so we can compare numbers from different years on an equal basis.

Now, if the truth matters to you, go back and look at the data rather than just mouthing the political talking points. You'll find that I am correct in the analysis and you are wrong. By the way, it could be that you have a lower resolution monitor that does not allow you to get the dates on the charts precisely right. Again, your dates are wrong, look at the charts on another computer.

By the way, prop 8 doesn't limit your speech. In fact, if homosexuals get married, it doesn't affect you at all unless you are incapable of teaching your children that your way is better.

Regarding the spending argument, it is juvenile. Spending never gets substantially reduced. Therefore, when you reduce taxes, all you do is increase the debt. Spending was not cut under any Republican President. Spending is the mother's milk of politics -- and I think you know that. Therefore, lowering taxes only hurts our children's future. I believe we should have people pay if they want to spend. Then, if people think they are taxed too much, they can agree to what they're willing to cut. By the way, 53% of the budget is social security and medicare, 20% is military, and 10% is interest. If you want to cut the budget, these are the big items you should cut. I am actually in favor of cutting both social security and medicare to reduce spending.

Again, John, please learn how to do analysis, it will set you free and make your conclusions valid.

ya mon| 1.5.09 @ 5:14PM

For those who do not think Gov. Palin is qualified to be President, just curious on what specific qualifications you feel a person needs to be a successful President? You may also find it useful to consider what attributes and backgrounds unsuccessful President's (and most were mediocre at best) had in common.

Scott| 1.5.09 @ 6:05PM

WAKE UP!!!! Conservatives have a problem not because of the liberals, but because of what you see above. We have the same basic principles of where we want to get to but we each argue which way is the right way to get there. We are each Individual by nature, we are not collectivists that just agree, and that makes us unique and also fighters.

The article points out a few areas that conservatives need to get their arms around and be on the same page to be on the offensive. Our job is to demand freedom of speech, right to bear arms, lower taxation and speeding and our choice to be pro-life. Each time one of these points comes up ten people have ten different opinions how to get there and argue. Because of this we never are on the same page and then we place someone who should not be on the ticket there because they were the greyest person compromising our values so we could all get along.

Quit the bickering and be a conservative with morals. Who gives a hoot about how the other person wants to get there as long as they get there. Children fight for the ability to be right so stop acting like a fricken 5 year old and agree we need less money out of our pockets and less government spending.

We need morals to be allowed back in society and our schools. We need the ability to not be PC. We need to teach children about guns, and sex so they are armed with information and if we allow the morals to be taught again so we can eliminate some of the social killings and underage pregnancies. These will never go away completely but it is a start.

Again as long as we get to were we need to be who cares if it is your way or not as long as the end result is what we need as a society as a nation as a conservative body. If you drive a Yugo and someone else drives a BMW and you both arrive to the meeting there is no difference. If you elect Palin, Jindal, Pawlenty, Bush or any of the above they need to have "our" interest in mind not exactly the way you see if but the result is the same.

Alex | 1.5.09 @ 9:13PM

Where are renewable energy sources mentioned in this article??? Of course we need nuclear power but what about wind power and solar power??? Then you wonder why young voters overwhelmingly went for Obama.

Unless the GOP starts giving common-sense solutions to energy and environmental challenges, young voters will not come back to the GOP, and without them -the future of America- we are condemning ourselves to a permanent minority status.

john smiithson | 1.6.09 @ 1:57AM

Alex, young people voted for Obama for the very same reasons I voted for Carter, the first time . . . idealism without any historic perspective. And, who knows, Obama just might be a good President. Time will tell.

I live in California. We are constantly being told to conserve water and residential energy (also known as 'electricity'). I do neither. . . . conserve, that is. It is my way of rebelling against the establishment. In this state, we do not have an energy or water crisis that is not directly related to 33 years of do-nothing environmental policy. In other words, we do not have a water crisis, we have a dam crisis. And which age group continues this idiocy? The transient community known as the "youth."

We have more than 100 years of oil supply in this country for this country. We have foreign countries that seek to destroy us but supply our oil. And we are an oil based country. A hundred years is not much time. We are feeding those who seek to destroy us. And the conversion from oil based to natural gas and clean coal will probably take 20 - 30 years if not more. So why not drill now, keeping the price of oil at it's current low while, at the same, using this period of time to make the transition without driving us all into the poor house ?? Why not ?

Obama is no more a liberal than was/is poor old Jimmy Carter. Thank God (the Christian God, of course) that Reagan came to our rescue and my redemption (for voting for Carter, in the first place.) Carter failed in his FIRST administration to effectively deal with the economic issues of the day. That is the same possibility facing Obama, as well. He has made a lot of good decisions with regard to his economic team, it seems, so we wait and hope for the best. I seriously hope he succeeds and I am willing to allow him to govern as a Black politician might. To date, he has displayed the good sense that is required in changing one's mind. He was wrong with respect to Iraq and has changed his thinking on that. Likewise raising taxes, personal and corporate. Although he is a abortion-rights freak, Bush is the one who signed into law the Ru486 pill, so I have little to complain about, when it comes to Dems and abortion. That is why the GOP needs a thorough house cleaning between now and the Congressional elections. Just know this - the 2010 elections will not see 3/4 of a trillion dollars spent to win an election by 6 points !!! So much for the trend to liberalism.

John Smithson
http://midknightreview.blogspot.com/

john smithson| 1.6.09 @ 2:12AM

And I think this is a great post - bears repeating. I won't do this again, but I likie !!

aware | 1.3.09 @ 7:43PM
Bob... I must admit that I consider the Austrian economic theory to have far more validity than Keynes, so I come from that perspective.
No matter what kind of "stimulus" package you want, if it is administered by the State there are only three ways to get the money for it . Tax for it, borrow it, or print it.
None of these things actually creates capital. Taxing merely takes money that would have been used in private consumption and investments and uses it for public spending, redirects if you will.
Borrowing is getting harder to do in the time of colossal public debt, and besides it amounts to nothing but a promise to do the first option at a future date.
Printing is fast becoming the only "weapon" left to snatch at and I can only hope that even rabid Keynesians understand none of its consequences can be called good.
None of this creates wealth. The essential fatal flaw in accepting State control in the economy is this, the State can never make an economic decision that is not controlled by politics. Indeed, with the State, politics is sometimes the only consideration.
This all comes back to the inescapable fact that vesting the power, willingly or unwillingly, in the Fed to "regulate" the free market in this case amounted to The Fed renting the hotel room, where it then invited all its rowdy friends(bankers, stockbrokers, developers, real estate speculators , and so forth) to do what they do. And now, thanks to the Fed, the taxpayer is on the hook for repairing the trashed room.
It's not just wrong to expect borrowing more money to fix what borrowed money caused, it's completely insane.
And I'm having trouble understanding how you "regulate" your way to a free market. All this money and effort by government is trying to prevent corrections that have needed to happen because of malinvestment and as such is working against, not for, what is needed. It is doing this for political,not economical, considerations.
An implosion of this magnitude is not possible without State participation, especially as instigator.

Bob| 1.6.09 @ 8:01AM

John, you made two comments that has shown your true colors.

"Thank God (the Christian God, of course)"

and

"I am willing to allow him to govern as a Black politician might"

This show both religious and racial intolerance. First, you are saying that only the Christian God is valid, and next you are saying that race makes a difference in how someone governs. You have provided a perfect example of why Republicans need to drop social conservatives as having veto power in the party.

Secondly, you cannot have free markets without regulation. It is not a free market when hedge funds can manipulate the price of stocks nor is it a free market when the Madoff's of the world can swindle charities out of their money. Regulation hopefully prevents crimes from being committed and insures that manipulation is held to a minimum. If you agree with "aware" on this, it shows a severe naivete of market dynamics. In addition to the education you need in reading graphs and doing analyses, I suggest you learn something about world markets.

john smithson| 1.6.09 @ 11:16AM

Bob writes: "You have provided a perfect example of why Republicans need to drop social conservatives as having veto power in the party. "

People who do not believe in the Christian God are the only ones I know who think there are other gods. You either believe that Jesus of Nazareth is God incarnate or you are an atheist.
Now, I am certain that more than Bob do not agree with this statement. Most Muslims have exactly the same belief system about their god. They would say "Amen" to Bob's nonsense (that I should be excluded from political debate because of my belief) just before they cut his head off. Jews would say the very same thing for their god. Diddo Buddists. And I could go on and on with my examples.

Does "tolerance" demand of me the abandonment of my beliefs?

I am not asking anyone on this forum to agree with me. This is not a lead-in for some sort of evangelical scheme to convert you all. Rather, it is a statement that just might help unpack the real issues at the centre of political "unity." In our society, political unity is based upon a majority vote, in most cases. How does that figure into the notion of "party unity?" Do more of you [all] think I should not be allowed to participate in the political process because of my beliefs?

Secondly, I am not saying that race has something to do with how "someone" governs. I am saying that race may have something to do with how Barack governs. Further, I am NOT saying that such is a bad thing, in and of itself.

And before you begin another round of babel, Bob, consider this: I have read Michelle's senior Prenceton paper. I know who her sources are and what they believe (Stokely Carmichael and Charles V Hamilton, for example). I know about the Black election strategy of "deracialization." I know all about Bill Ayers and his views on education and his influence on Barack's views. I know about Black Theology and the 20 years the Obama's have listened to its tenets. I know about these things and am willing to let Barack govern as a Black politician. None of the above - none - implies insincerity on the part of the Obama's. Neither do these things go to their honesty as leaders and their obvious desire to be effective.

My belief system is very different from Barack's. I came close to voting for him, mostly because of my disgust for McCain. What drove me away from that potential vote was Obama's refusal to be transparent with regards to some of the things I have mentioned above. If the GOP cannot get its act together, Obama may be a voting option for me, again, in 2012. If we actually have someone running who exhibits a [conservative] political soul, voting for Obama will not even cross my mind.

Finally, a question. Bob, have you finally decided to stop pretending that you are a political conservative. If you have any questions about your political identity, well, I can help you with that.

Oh, I almost forgot. I will let "aware" defend himself. You didn't fare too well in the last confrontation with him - I suspect continuing discussions will be more of the same.

John Smithson
jsjohnnt@aol.com

Bob| 1.6.09 @ 1:57PM

Now, John, you've made it clear who you are and the bigotry you have against others. You still have to learn how to read graphs and data properly and understand "normalization" for which I showed you the definition.

For your information, I am a very strong fiscal conservative, believe in personal responsibility, limited government, and a strong military. I was against the bailouts for the financial institutions and auto companies, do not believe in the Bush/neo-conservative doctrine of optional wars, and yes, I think that government should EXCLUDE the religious beliefs of intolerants like you. Limited government means exactly that -- you don't legislate for things like abortion and gay marriage -- you leave that up to individuals. If there is an option, keep government out of our lives. I also believe it is more important to have smart, educated, knowledgeable leaders because they will tend to be more pragmatic (and understand how to do analysis.)

From my perspective, it is YOU that is not the conservative.

john smithson| 1.6.09 @ 2:54PM

Bob, you actually need to read my posts.
I am not "anti-gay" politically speaking. I am anti-gay marriage and I am this, not because of my faith, but because in keeping silent on this issue, I lose my free speech right to object to such behavior. Would I vote to allow gays communal rights. Yes. As long as that is not associated with the notion of marriage. Again, the California initiative is not about gay marriage but about taking free speech from those who disagree - something you are for as well. You are no conservative while voting against free speech. There are plenty of fiscal conservatives in the Democrat Party. And that is what you are. Stop pretending. You come to a conservative site such as this and then angry when people speak conservatively. Kind of stupid, in my opinion.

Abortion opposition is not about the Christian faith; it is about protecting the life of the unborn or those who are marked for abortion but survive. These babies are not only full term, they are "post term" and yet we murder them out of hand because we were not successful in pulling them apart before birth. Incredible. And it is incredible that you do not understand my arguments for the above positions.

Practicing Christians cannot be bigots, by the way.

John Smithson

Michael L. Hauschild| 1.6.09 @ 4:50PM

I noticed the odds makers are giving Sarah Palin the highest statistical probability of securing the Republican nomination for President in 2012 (3.8 to 1). Aside from the fact that those same statisticians no doubt rationalized victories for Al Gore and John Kerry (while certifying global warming, climate change and the inundation of Florida) I am one of those on the Sarahcuda bandwagon.

Here is why.
1) While exemplifying the empowerment of women, she is not (Ms.) / (hyphen) / (surname of her father). She is comfortable in her “skin” and embodies all those wonderful gender based roles of, mother, wife, and now grandmother. The myth of a “Sex in the City” personage being the only career choice able to shatter a glass ceiling will be an inspiration to many young women. In case you haven’t noticed ladies, the potential candidate pool for the leadership of the free world has expanded beyond the philandered significant other.
2) Much has been eluded as to the significance of candidate’s “experience.” It is dual, some is garnished in the rough and tumble act of achieving office and some is gained serving. Campaigning as a VP for Sarah Palin provided experience (some negative) but learning what not to do, and seeing first hand the pitfalls of a hostile MSM is a lesson she will carry into round two. The MSM is formidable but diminished and failing, Palin has been the one “championed.” As a serving governor she has proven credentials; her constituents approve of her, the bipartisan corruption in her state has been stifled, and most significantly she is identified as being part of the cure, not part of the problem.
3) However, to me, Sarah Palin’s most important characteristics are honesty and toughness. The incredible response she provided in the failed 2008 campaign was simply her “down to earth” personality. She has substance. No one is going to “see through” her; she is not composed of gaseous rhetoric, and she is not a magnified projection created by media commentary or a press release. As for tough, she might shed a tear for a fallen soldier but it sure will not be because she lost a primary and needs contributions.

It is apparent that the social issues are what divides the Republican / Conservative / Libertarian constituents, economics, lesser government, and personal freedom are the common threads. I have no hesitancy in allowing Sarah Palin to be my candidate, my President, or my social conscience. I behave within the confines of my own family exactly as she. What I will have a problem with is if she (or any body else for that matter) abandons the “personal freedom” premise and tries to become my country’s social engineer.

Michele San Pietro| 1.6.09 @ 5:45PM

I think conservatives and any true American should protect themselves from the shameful foreign anti-American propaganda once and for all. You can't imagine how much anti-American garbage I hear over here in Italy every single day, and how many insults I continuously suffer just because I like the United States.

john smithson| 1.6.09 @ 10:37PM

With M. Hauschild post in mind, I really have to shake my head in amazement at the criticism leveled at Palin by those who are, themselves lacking in qualifications. And the beat goes on. Yesterday, Obama appoints Leon Panetta to be the Director of the CIA. Ooops, there I go again, shaking my head. You got Biden - seriously, who wants this guy as President. Obviously no one in his own party and yet, he is now the VP. We have Nancy Pelosi - third in line to be the President.
The Kennedy woman for NY Senator. Have any of you heard her talk ? Wow. Obama himself viewed "qualifications" with a scoff and a grin. He began running for President before he began serving as US Senator.

Anyway - I give no court to those who reject Palin on this basis. Indeed, she represents the American way. A home maker who decided to do something about the mess she saw in her locale and in her state. Hats off to her and thanks for the post.

To our friend in Italy - don't drink the Kool-Aid. Their country would not be free if not for us.

Bob| 1.7.09 @ 9:01AM

John/Michael, the case against Palin is simple, she lacks knowledge and you can't make good decisions without it. What's more, she lacks the intellectual curiosity to have learned about foreign policy, war, the Supreme Court, economics, etc. Reagan prepared policy positions over 25 years. Obama studied foreign policy in college, taught Constitutional law, and gave his first policy speech on foreign policy back in 1991. In addition, he constantly studied the history of other Presidents. Palin had done none of this. In the debate, she even said she found a privacy protection in the Constitution, which she obviously didn't know was the legal basis of Roe v. Wade.

Can you imagine choosing a cabinet and not understanding the mistakes of previous Presidents? Can you imagine making a decision to go to war with Iran without understanding the history of Shiites? Can you imagine making a decision on the economy without understanding the history of supply side economics? Could you imagine going to a cardiologist who knew nothing about the heart? George Bush also had the problem of being intellectually incurious, and he's just about ruined this country.

And please, don't bring up Biden/Pelosi as examples. They may be mental midgets, but they do have knowledge. And their Republican counterparts aren't much better, if at all.

Being President is like any other job, you want someone who knows enough to make good decisions. Palin would be played like a puppet by neocons. Being a mother is far different from being President.

And from a social context, the latest scandal with her new potential son-in-law shows that he held a job that he didn't qualify for. You have a mother (Palin) who couldn't pass on morality to her daughter, didn't think enough about education to make sure she had a high school diploma, and has lied about them studying for their GED.

Palin is not that much different than Lindsay Lohan and you guys support her without knowing what she knows and what kind of decisions she would make. In psychology, it is called projection.

Regarding her "experience", the mayor of Wasilla actually has less responsibility than almost any other mayor since she didn't run fire, police, social services, etc., and only served about 15 hours per week. As governor, she served during a period of high oil prices and has never faced hard times -- she will now.

Being President is far different than a senator. As a senator, she can serve on a specific committee, let's say energy, and learn about the other areas. As President, you have to know things.

With Obama, we had 22 debates, a couple of books actually written by him, policy position papers, we saw how he ran a campaign, we saw how he could draw people into the bully pulpit, several press conferences where they asked him tough questions, many interviews by both friendly and combative people like O'Reilly and Wallace. With Palin, we had two interviews about policy that she failed completely and one debate where she refused to answer questions.

Like I said, if you are willing to choose your cardiologist in the same way, I wish you luck.

john smithson| 1.7.09 @ 10:21AM

That Palin has/had no intellectual curiosity is more than ridiculous. She moved from the kitchen to school board to Mayor to head of the State's oil agency to Governor of the State all while Obama was writing policy papers and developing political theory, a theory that is currently being proven wrong nearly each and every day. Bob, you have mentioned more than once that Palin did not run the fire, police or social services of Wasilla. This criticism is without merit. No mayor, Bob, runs the fire, police or social services of her particular city.

Your listing of Obama qualifications for the President of the United States should be read over and over again by anyone who comes to this forum. It makes my case for his disqualification.

He refused 10 real debates with McCain and that is a fact, Bob. The 22 "debates" were nothing more than question and answer sessions and he did not do rise above the others in these sessions.
I think it funny that you think a "debate" is qualification for being President. Then you remind us of his policy papers, his two self-serving books, that his campaign FOR President qualifies him for BEING President (!!! ???) [which would qualify everyone who runs for office], press conferences, speeches in which he would say things like "now is the time the earth began to cool and the oceans began to recede."

Paline interviewed many times and did just fine with the exception of the two we have mentioned here on this forum. The only one of the two that bothered me, personally, was the Couric interview. The part I did not like took less than 60 seconds out of that interview. And what part of that interview did we all see? Diddo with the sullen and foreboding Charlie Gibson. Before the campaign was over, she fielded more than 20 press conferences conducted by the local press of whatever city she visited. She drew crowds as large or larger than Obama for much of the campaign cycle. And, if you think she cannot give a speech, well, you have been spending too much making up economic theory.

You say, "As President, you have to know things." That would be nice, but apparently the Dems do not believe that so why should anyone else?

Obama has decided to infuse 1.2 trillion "into the economy" in addition to the 1 trillion we have already allocated and the first allocation which did nothing for the economy. He will do absolutely nothing about the 12 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities tagged to Social Security.

He apparently believes that if he gives us all some money to spend and we actually spend it, all is well !! We cannot dig our way out of a hole and we cannot spend our way out of either debt or a failing economy.

John Smithson

Bob| 1.7.09 @ 10:37AM

John, please. Intellectual curiosity is not knowing what you must know, but also wanting to know things beyond your position. Palin had none of that. Almost all of her interviews were on Fox News by Hannity and company which didn't ask her one hard question. She had NO press conferences with open questions from the press. You said she drew crowds larger than Obama -- you mean like the 200,000 in Germany, or the 80,000 in Oregon, or perhaps the 400,000 in Grand Park? That wasn't even a good try.

Your statement that mayors have no responsibility for services shows how little you know. Here is what the NY City mayor is responsible for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_New_York_City

"The Mayor is responsible for all city services, police and fire protection, enforcement of all city and state laws within the city, and administration of public property and most public agencies."

This is common for almost ALL big city mayors.

John, you can't be intellectually serious about your support points for Palin. If you are..... Well....

To sum up, we have no idea what Palin thinks about Iran, Darfur, OPEC, Keynesian economics, Supreme Court decisions, pre-emptive war, military tactics, torture, etc., etc., etc. At least you are asked these questions in debates.

By the way, polling indicated that Obama won most of his debates. Polling indicated that Biden won the debate with Palin by a 60-40 ratio.

One question, what if Palin is actually more Libertarian than you think and supports civil unions and other gay rights? She did so in Alaska.

john smithson| 1.7.09 @ 11:13AM

Your use of Wikipedia to show that mayors have charge over fire, police and social services while Palin did not is bogus - in fact, it appears to be an intentional misuse of that article. Here is a quote from that very artical, Bob: "The government of New York is more centralized than that of most other U.S. cities, with the city government being responsible for public education, correctional institutions, libraries, public safety, recreational facilities, sanitation, water supply, and welfare services."

She did draw crowds as large or larger than Obama for much of the campaign. That was my point and that is a fact.

Who "won" the Biden dabate? I saw the debate and she did great. Further, your flow chart of a few days ago proves you wrong. The most radical upward movement on that chart is the Palin effect following the Biden debate.

You claim that intellectual curiosity is measured by the seeking of knowledge that goes beyond your current position. You say it this wise: " . . .
wanting to know things beyond your position . . "
She is in the kitchen fixing gravy and biscuits and decides to become a board member at the local school. She obviously sought out knowledge that went beyond her "position." She is a member of the school board and decides to run for Mayor. Again, accepting the demand to expand knowledge beyond her current position. Diddo for moving from Mayor to head of the States oil council. Diddo from moving from that to Governor.

John Smithson

Bob| 1.7.09 @ 11:37AM

John, I see you still didn't read the polling graphs properly. On the day of the debate (10/2), McCain had an average of 43.3. It rose to a high of 44.1 on 10/6 and dropped thereafter. Perhaps more important, Obama's total was 48.0 and rose to 48.8 on 10/6. THEY BOTH GAINED THE SAME AMOUNT. All this meant was that some undecideds made a decision. Palin didn't convince anyone to change their minds, and this was much smaller than the 3.0 point drop after the Gibson interview and the 2.6 drop after the Couric interview. During the time of those two interviews, Obama gained significant share. Again, an OBJECTIVE analysis would say that Hillary voters were initially enamored with Palin but were turned off by her performance in the Gibson and Couric interviews and eventually came back to Obama. Polling at the time of the Palin pick backs this up.

John, you can have your own opinion, but you cannot have your own facts.

With regard to mayoral responsibilities, I challenge you to find any big city mayor that does not have control of fire, police, and social services. I know this is true in Boston, Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago.

You also seem to completely disregard the 8 years Obama was a state senator. In point of fact, Obama had more time in elected office than Palin. If Republicans are to succeed, it might help to face facts rather than make them up.

John Smithson| 1.7.09 @ 4:27PM

"With regard to mayoral responsibilities, I challenge you to find any big city mayor that does not have control of fire, police, and social services. I know this is true in Boston, Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago. " -- Bob

Your own source confirms my comments. I live in Fresno - over 1/2 million population. The mayor functions just a Palin did. Social Services is usually a function of the County. It is in California. Police and Fire are managed by their own staffs in all parts of the country. Allocation of funds for hiring purposes is the function of city governments. New York plays a much larger role than is typical to this picture and that is why the article distinguishes N.Y. from "most other cities" in the nation. Enough said.

You have no clue on reading your own chart refernence and I have made my case in previous post. Lets move on, shall we.

If you want to continue this discussion, do it off line. I would be happy to respond in that case.

John
jsjohnnt@aol.com

Bob| 1.7.09 @ 5:34PM

Please, John, for your own sake, learn how to read charts....

john smithson| 1.8.09 @ 12:39PM

Elections have consequences. I know that. And Obama just finished a speech that featured much of what he promised to do during the election campaign minus one very important set of statements. Now that he can afford to be "transparent," he tells us something of his novice political opinion [read: theory] and that is this: only government can solve our financial woes [words to that effect]. Absolute idiocy.

What does not get mentioned over and over again, is the fact that this recession is, currently, not as bad as the Carter recession -- bad but not even close to Carter's. And we did not borrow our way out of that one. Four times as many banks failed in the late 1990 recession as in this one. And we did not borrow our way out of that one.

It is also curious to me that Bush can design a deficit spending budget and it is a bad thing but Obama can ushered in a who era of deficit spending and it is a good thing?

Nothing in Obama's speech about dealing with the 12 trillion in unfunded responsibilites in the Social Security system. Nothing about getting rid of the "affordable housing" practices borne of Democrat idealism that handed us this current disaster. In fact -- no specifics at all; just broadly stated and great sounding goals.

Here is a studied fact: recessions resolve themselves within 24 months - that has been the historical reality in this country.

The unqualified leading the blind. How sweet it is !

John Smithson

john smithson| 1.12.09 @ 12:06PM

Some predictions:

1. Gas at the pump prices will rise to the $3.50 - $4.00 level by end of the summer. When it becomes clear to investors that oil will be in low supply via the incompetence of Green Peace Policy, it's "value" will increase - same principle works for diamonds and gold.

2. Obama will not be able to increase the size of the job market without increasing the size of government. My grandmother can do what Obama is about to do for the job market.

3. National Health Care under Obama will not be the end-all medical revision that his supporters thought might be the case. It will not reduce the cost of health care to that part of the citizenry who actually pays revenue tax. It will not lessen the demand to the E.R. centers in this country.

4. There will be no substantial increase in "Green Power Supply" within the next 5 years.

5. IBM will not save 40% on its energy bill next year as their commercials promise.

6. IBM will continue to spend millions advertising the Obama green philosophy. We note that hundreds of union controlled companies [like IBM] will fall in line with advertisement and dollars in their quest for government benefit whether measured in policy benefit or dollars for "research" and green-job provisions.

7. We will have significant levels of troop involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan three years from now despite Obama's campaign promise to be out of the war business by the end of 2009. It's going to be fun calling the Dems "warmongers" for a change.

8. The earth will continue to cool (four years running, now) until 2012 and the predicted increase in Sun-spot activity.

9. We will be attacked in the mainland within the next three years because of the mess about to be made of the intelligence community.

10. Nancy Pelosi will continue to lose I.Q. points as the years go by. Can you believe that we are two heartbeats away from her being our President?

William| 1.13.09 @ 8:46PM

In truth there is but one thing that can change the state of things. This is change ourselves...not out of a selfish interests but out contribution to family, society, the whole. I consider my contribution to those around me and I wonder is anyone or thing really better off because of my selfless effort. Would I be willing to suffer financially so that someone else could live in safety or shelter. Am I concerned more for my needs then my neighbors? Government is corrupt and ever will be, the intention of the founding fathers was that we serve for a time and that service was to be uncomfortable, difficult, a sacrifice. It was not something to profit from. Who would be willing to give at a loss, to come back from service in congress and then have to work the next five year just to catch up on your debts? My friends that kind of service is no longer possible in our current circumstances. So we must raise a new generation, our children can learn how to give in that way truly selfless giving for absolutely NO personal gain at all, just the service of ones fellow man for their sake. This mindset will mend our land of the free and home of the brave...that and remembering God is the author of this great land of liberty...NOT man or us. We can not fix that which is not ours, we can only handle it with selfless honor, in honor of Him whose it is.

john smithson| 1.20.09 @ 1:32AM

What needs to happen in a practical sense is for leadership to take the reins and make decisions that are both obvious and necessary. For starters, General and/or vocational education after high school should no longer be an option for our nation's youth. Our population is being allowed to become dumber and dumber as the years pass by or should I say as the years pass us by. A draft of some sort is in order - not military but a draft into various levels of national service. GED and (at least) vocational training should be not only offered but required in this service. Although I did not vote for Obama, I do think he is thinking along these lines, as well.

John Smithson| 1.27.09 @ 4:59PM

Sorry if my discussion with "Bob" ran everyone off.

Interloper| 2.1.09 @ 9:13PM

Knowing that Clint has rarely written a sentence without misspellings, bad grammar and cliches, I checked on his long comment above. It was copied verbatim, without attribution, from a column by Michelle Malkin. Furthermore, very little in it is true. Conservatives will get nowhere by claiming President Obama is stupid, now that he has a bigger platform to prove he isn't than ever. This is the kind of racially tinged foolishness that most Americans are fed up with.

Also, Vince is one of the types on this thread who demonstrate that the GOP is disproportionately attracting bottom feeders. No one meeting such an individual, or reading his output, would be impressed were he to follow Peter Ferrara's instruction. Instead, the would-be recruit would congratulate herself on not sharing common ground with the person. I must say the same for the 'Bible Thumper,' type and the 'Ron Paul Revolution' type as well. Americans have shown they prefer a secular government. If Ron Paul had ideas that interested most citizens, his effect on the election would not have been miniscule. Besides, we have a real constitutional law expert in the White House.

john smithson| 2.3.09 @ 11:49PM

I am not sure as to who is claiming the mantel of "stupidity" for our Novice President, but no one in the conservative circles in which I run believes Obama is anything but intelligent.

Unfortunately, that is his only qualification and, after two weeks, it is not manifest that this will be enough.

He has turned the "stimulus bill" over to Reid and the extremely ignorant Pelosi. Their first bill did nothing for the economy and, in fact, no one is sure as to where all that money went since the banking industry has refused to give any accounting for their governmental gift.

This most recent election cost the Dems 3/4 of a trillion dollars. They spent nearly 800 billion to win an election by 6% of the vote. As it turns out, somewhere between 15 and 20% of Republicans stayed away from the polls on November 4th. These two statistics should worry those who sit in Democrat war rooms.

The sprint to the left was not anticipate by very many commentators. It is apparent to those of us on the right that this sharp left hand turn is due to an awareness of the facts just stated. Unless Dems can shore up their political circumstance, a reversal of fortunes may be on the horizon beginning in just two years.

Of course, if the GOP does not return to his base principles, nothing will change. But it is change we are hoping for and Obama has done much during the past two weeks to open the doors for that change. All we can do is hope that he will be able to keep up the good work.

My fear with Obama is that he just might be in over his head. I voted for Carter the first time and I voted for him for the same reasons many voted for Obama. Right now, I see the possibility that Obama will mirror Carter’s administration in startling measure.

They moan and groan about Bush spending money and are doing the same thing only in spades. Give me a break. At least Bush won a war. I was wondering what Obama’s definition of ‘victory’ will be in Afgan and what is his timetable for getting out of that country. He might just find out why Bush did not center the war on terror in that country. It is an non-winnable war. But the Novice has to start somewhere. Too bad it had to with his Presidency.

Perry | 7.29.09 @ 1:19PM

Sorry. After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I have one. Help me! Looking for sites on: . I found only this - . Virginia state board of elections web site provides election results, candidate information, campaign finance information, voter registration information. Map - corporate headquarters of northwest commercial bank. Thanks for the help :o, Perry from Indonesia.

link of london | 9.10.09 @ 11:25PM

Thanks for your information, i have read it, very good！

Pingback| 11.13.09 @ 2:08AM

Quick Politics Link Roundup « Happy Friday the 13th! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:

« Happy Friday the 13th! Happy Friday the 13th! A simple celebration. « The Essential Obama Quick Politics Link Roundup Two lists of proposed objectives for conservatives: The American Spectator Valley of the Shadow And On The Issues, which tracks politicians’ records and offers an interesting political graph for each one (and for readers if they want to take their quiz). This…

ew| 3.9.10 @ 3:01AM

Well done! Nice shoe

gfd| 3.9.10 @ 3:02AM

Thanks for sharing! Nice shoe

arts | 12.8.11 @ 11:25PM

I see that any efforts and work that give any kind of help and useful informations to people anywhere must be thanked and respected efforts , if it is small or big , from one person or group , your informations also must be thanked properties

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|114 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|126 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|114 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|4 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|72 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|18 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Alan O’Day, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 12:26AM

Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 5.19.13

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?