AmSpec has a link to a disgruntled Obama RepubliCAN:

Fred Tausch of Nashua is a frustrated, well-to-do businessman who got tired of watching politicians of both parties spending taxpayers’ money. And so, spending $100,000 of his own money, he’s trying to do something about it.

In full-page ads today in this newspaper and others, in radio advertisements and on a new Web site, the 37-year-old entrepreneur and investment manager emerges onto the political scene to provide an avenue for others upset about the size of the stimulus package and likely more spending measures on the horizon. Tausch is a registered independent who, after voting Republican for most of his life, supported Barack Obama in the last election, even contributing $2,300 to the cause. Tausch said he “got excited about his message. There was not a lot of fiscal discipline in either party, and I thought that when Obama talked about change, he was including that he would be more cautious about how we spend money. And that’s just not the case.”

A hundred thousand dollars bought him advertising, and a heavily-linked site and blog (which I won’t link to here on Red State). It also got him publicity, and maybe a nice way to shore up business in a struggling economy. People in sales and management know the mantra: you gotta spend money to make money.

What a hundred thousand dollars won’t buy him, though, is getting his vote back. It won’t buy anyone any step to taking a Constitutionally non-existent vote of No Confidence (as an aside, I thank G-d for that everyday else Bush would have been kicked out prematurely). All that money and more won’t unseat the man now that he’s been sworn in. A hundred thousand dollars spent in advertising and publicity won’t get him a space in the Court of Queen Nancy Pelosi Of The House Of Representatives.

What his hundred thousand dollars bought him was the public admission that he’s been had by the most transparently con-y con men of recent history. What his money bought him is the willful and all-too-public admission that he’s a schmuck and nothing more. We who never gave Barack Hussein Obama the benefit of the doubt did our part and then some in trying to keep him out of office. It didn’t cost me any money, just my time.

I don’t care what Mr. Fred Tausch might believe now. He just admitted, with the help of a hundred thousand dollars, that he’s been fooled just like so many of them. Would you really want to invest your money in this dirty schmuck’s company?

The past weeks since the new president flubbed his way into office have been a rip-roaring carnival of mistake after mistake, as the mask slips in bits and pieces. We on the Right know that all of these things that we see so clearly would have been reported with vicious aplomb by a media that we know is liberal in its bias simply because of the leeway with which they give their ideological compatriots.

The funny part is when we start seeing Leftists defend The Obama’s duplicity. After months of droning on and on and on about his desired transparency, and his goals for what he wants in government, all we could see now is the hypocrite that we’ve always known him to be. The duplicity itself is to be expected. The man is a distillation of Chicago machine politics. The intellectual dishonesty from the Left, though, as they continue to twist and turn and bend in every possible direction to defend their Messiah, is surprisingly funny.

Everytime I see a Leftist blogger try to defend The Obama’s lies, I sit back, steeped in schadenfreude at their loss of integrity. They accused us for years of cheerleading Bush’s politics, of supportng him through the limits of intellectual thick and thin. It turns out that they’re not just equally capable of the very same acts that they accused us of doing, but that they have actually exceeded our capacity for doing so.

That would be the day, when we see them hold him accountable.

To begin, some Ancient wisdom, from none other than Aesop himself:

A GREAT conflict was about to come off between the Birds and the Beasts. When the two armies were collected together the Bat hesitated which to join. The Birds that passed his perch said: “Come with us”; but he said: “I am a Beast.” Later on, some Beasts who were passing underneath him looked up and said: “Come with us”; but he said: “I am a Bird.” Luckily at the last moment peace was made, and no battle took place, so the Bat came to the Birds and wished to join in the rejoicings, but they all turned against him and he had to fly away. He then went to the Beasts, but soon had to beat a retreat, or else they would have torn him to pieces. “Ah,” said the Bat, “I see now, HE THAT IS NEITHER ONE THING NOR THE OTHER HAS NO FRIENDS.”

And some more modern insight from Jonah Goldberg:

As a matter of practical politics, contemporary liberalism amounts to a coalitional ideology, while conservatism remains an ideological coalition. The Democratic Party is the party of various groups promising to scratch each other’s backs. Gay rights activists and longshoreman coexist in the same party because they promise support on each other’s issues.

The Republican Party is different. It says to voters, if you believe seven, eight or even ten out of the ten things we believe, you should be a Republican. Obviously, there are coalitions on the Right and ideologues on the Left, but I think the generalization remains valid.

It seems that the chattering masses on TV and on the web, perhaps myself included, have been quite occupied with what to do with the Republican Party. I, for one, have quite a few topics lined up, but I don’t intend this to be the bulk of my content on Red State.

As I rack ‘em and stack ‘em, I will define who the Moderates are in the Party, how they work, what their effects tend be, and what their role should be, at least in my opinion.

Read More →

This is not going to be a lengthy recap of the many woes caused us by now-infamous names such as Kathleen Parker, Peggy “She Killed But I Don’t Like Her Anyway” Noonan, and our favorite whipping-boy, David “She Is A Cancer Upon The Party” Brooks. The resourceful can spend their time on Google and Technorati for the detailed history.

At the heart of it all, Palin was perhaps the “last, great hope for Conservatism” for many of us in this election season. She was a quick study, had a natural talent for politics and government, and had the charm and charisma that disarmed Obama’s. At the end of the run, Obama lost his lustre. He seemed too serious; in some of his rallies he started to look angry, which was the very same quality he tried to pin on McCain. Palin, on the other hand, was the happiest warrior in the bunch. Were it not for the occasional glimpses into the difficulties of campaigning, I for one would have considered her superhuman.

Palin presented an image that is instinctively appealing not just to Conservatives, but even those Americans who were not politically inclined. She spoke in a language that spoke to them. She laid out the case in a way that McCain’s senatorial decorum could not. Her accusations as to Obama’s character could not simply have been brushed off. Her attacks were deemed irrelevant by the Obamedia.

And what did our “Conservative” “thinkers” do? They savaged her and raked her over the coals. They accused her of being anti-intellectual, they found her accent grating, her supposed yokelism annoying. They attacked her as a person: they equated her seemingly simple ideas as a sign of her simplicity as a person. The person with whom we identified so much was deemed unworthy not so much of their blessing—which was too much to ask for anyway—but their grace, and tolerance.

These high-brow mumblers, in attacking her, attacked us. Well, one might counter by saying they attacked “some,” or “many” among us. But they attacked us. In so doing, by making it personal, they laid the groundwork for their own marginalization.

In my next diary entry, a discussion on a place for the Moderate Right.

In the days following the election I have slowly drifted toward the “hell no” camp with regards to this artificial concept of “national unity.” I have written here and on comments on other blogs that Congressional Republicans should grow a huge pair of brass balls and afford the Democrats no Cover for their legislation.

This forces Conservative Democrats to either fall in line with their party, or to vote their consciences and/or constituencies and buck Pelosi’s line. By voting present on moderate bills introduced by Dems, Repubs would be able to afford them merely tacit approval for their policies. Collegiality and bipartisanship must be banished for a while: Congressional Republicans need to hold the line against the sweeping leftism that the Obama-Reid-Pelosi machine will hoist. When it comes time for the election, these vipers will give us no credit on bills we were bipartisan about and try to call us out on the bills we apparently “obstruct,” even though they have a majority in both houses. By denying them our votes, we will be able to place the blame squarely on their necks.

I have written about this at length on my previous post, the guerilla Congress.

Today I entered a discussion with Bill Quick. He cites Markos Moulitsas’ inital days, makes a short summary of Kos’ rise to prominence, and then asks us: “What lessons do you think we might learn from the origins of Daily Kos, and the man and the vision behind it? I expect to be somewhat argumentative in the comments here, and I warn you, I will not be charitable to commenters who bleat, ‘Well, if we have to be like Kos in order to win, then I’m not interested in winning.’”

The discussion at the thread thus linked is very animated, very impassioned, and sometimes I find a little difficult to find elsewhere. While Conservative luminaries squabble over message, folks like Quick and myself, though in disagreement over a few things, took some time to agree on tactics and strategy.

Read More →

I’ve never held public office but I have always been civically active, even before I moved to the USA. As Bill Quick wrote [UPDATE: The post I linked to is by martinra, a Daily Pundit contributor. Apparently I am not aware of ALL the internet traditions regarding group blogs especially when bylines are at the end of an article. Yes, I have read Daily Pundit for years, and I am an idiot for not paying enough attn to his author lines. My bad.]

Free of George W. Bush. Free of John McCain. Free of the sickening smell of their shit sandwiches. Free of their taste. Free of the nausea. We’re free of the weight of their lies, their incompetence, their failures. We’re free of the betrayers, the “bipartisanship” and “compassionate conservatism” and “maverickiness” that always wound up with more taxes and regulations piled on our shoulders and more betrayals jammed between our ribs.

[...]

It’s all over now. The divorce paperwork is filed, and in two months, it is final. We are free from George W Bush, the fumble-tongued failure. We thought only that our principles were too much for his clumsy lips, when in fact they were never in his heart. We are free from John McCain, the betrayer of the First Amendment, the betrayer of all the citizens and legal immigrants who only want to live in a nation of laws!

I don’t quite share Quick’s enthusiastic malignance towards GWB; if anything I would be the last person to malign Bush, faults and achievements alike (something I will revisit).

But!

There is a reason I would love being in Congress. Running every two years makes for a very scrappy bunch. I think it’s time we sharpen our teeth. If I were a sitting member of Congress today I would run on a no-earmarks policy, and on a one-subject-one-law policy. I would vote NO on any Democrat bill that comes my way that I consider bad. I would use Boehner’s yellow chickensh_t button to vote PRESENT on any Democrat bill that I consider marginally good. When I propose legislation I will demand my party members vote for it, as I will vote for theirs.

We, as Republicans, must never afford Pelosi’s Congress any measure of Cover whatsover. These vipers will request Cover for bitter-pill bills, and when it’s time to run again in two years they won’t give you credit for it anyway. They would use the NO votes that we cast against us. So, let them have their effin’ way, because now, they have no way whatsoever to call us “obstructionist.”

Who cares if we don’t share the credit for their bllsht bills anyway? Who cares if we don’t share the credit for even brilliant bills? Pelosi’s Congress won’t give it to us anyway. But when we introduce beneficial legislation from a Conservative perspective, when we communicate it to our constituents in means that the Demoncrats will find difficult to characterize, and they vote it down? We can point at them that they are the true obstructinists.

In 2010, we can square it all on Pelosi and Reid and BHO, this unholy political trinity, and retake the House.

Well, you guys can. I can’t, but I’ll be a citizen in six years (and am I looking forward to that). But, you get the point: Party First.

Have historical cycles turned faster? I’ve lived a short twenty-eight years and it seems, since waking memory, that time flies forward faster and faster. It seems patterns are repeating too quickly. Or is it merely that in the environment of information overload, patterns are just too easy to see?

Last night on FxN Dick Morris started to issue a warning to us, and perhaps to the Obama administration, during a discussion on H&C. Regarding the Rahm Emanuel pick, he summoned the memory of Dick Gephardt. I paraphrase Morris:

I asked him [Clinton] to bring in some Republicans in his cabinet. Gephardt told him, that if he kept his cabinet within the party, Gephardt’s majority will back him in Congress. This caused so much bitterness among Republicans that they supported none of his bills. Gephradt then kept on making more and more leftward demands, and Bill couldn’t get the votes he needed.

Perception of selection of Rahm Emanuel among Conservatives has started to coalesce into two camps: one, that Rahm will enforce ideology upon policy by being the Bad Cop to those Republicans who are lucky enough to have a place in BHO’s court. Glenn Reynolds, on the other hand, thinks it’s to keep away the hungry masses to whom he promised bread. I’m more on Glenn’s side on this. The GOP would be lucky to have a seat at the master’s table, considering how GWB has historically shared power (which he didn’t). I defended GWB’s isolation of the Democrats back then. I won’t be inconsistent.

But, just to be naive, for just one moment. This obscure writer would like to propose something to BHO. If he is serious about “ending” the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and by “ending” I mean in victory, he should keep Robert Gates for maybe two years. If he is serious about having a strong, but “respectful” ForPol, he should keep Condi, if but for two years, to temper his dovishness and show our enemies that he is serious about our standing in the world, not as subjugate to them but as a “member.” (Yes, it can be done.) But of course even if someone sent him handwritten letter begging for this to happen, even if it were a majority of moderate Democrats [HAH!] in Congress, he wouldn’t listen. Because he’s a political animal from Chicago and the only way he knows is the Chicago way.

Mark Hemingway and Ramesh at NRO today linked “from 52 to 48 with love,” a cam-shot project reminiscent of that one site that came up after GWB’s 2004 victory. It’s treacly, and the gesture I am sure is well-meant, considering the propensity of youthful participants. Mark, bless his heart, has been receiving grief.

Judging by the torrent of email, my post below seems to have struck a nerve. By linking to such a shiny happy display, I wasn’t suggesting anyone immediately make peace with an Obama administration. Especially since most liberal attempts at reconciliation during the Bush years amounted to “Oh, hey — would you mind picking up the soap?” As one reader put it, “I’m more inclined to dress my wounds, restring my bow, and plan my counterattack than I am to hold hands and sing Kumbaya.”

Fair enough. But I do think that after eight years of “He’s not my President” bumper stickers and trying to put Karl Rove under citizens’ arrest for his role in unconstitutional mattress tag removal, it’s probably necessary that we be the adults here. And that includes acknowledging when overtures are made to make things less rancorous.

Many of us are graceful to the other side in defeat, because we have seen what it has cost them to be so acrimonious for years. I can not live my life like that. I am a patient, incremental political thinker and advocate, but I am not immortal. So in defeat, be gracious. In conflict, be ruthless. In victory, retain one’s soul.

I want to give these kids the benefit of the doubt. They have been led to believe that this has been a disgusting, hateful campaign and that they have spent the past eight years of their lives in a climate of hate. But the seventh photo down has a classy challenge to the 52, and features a photo of the greatest American president ever:

When free speech rights of conservative voices on the radio are stomped on by Obama & Pelosi, will the “52″ object?

When secret ballots of prospective union members are done away with by Obama & Pelose, will the “52″ say anything?

If a conservative president is elected in 2012, will today’s “52″ be as gracious as the “48″ today?

Cute photographs and catchy sloganse are nice but what really counts is whether you’ll walk your talk. There’s a word for those who won’t: Hypocrisy!

Yes, we are all rooting for the same team, and that is the success of America. I want the 52 to know that our opposition isn’t mean to lead the country to its failure. It’s because we believe that when the President is about to lead us down to a dangerous path we will not sit idly by and be quiet.

But beyond the small reprimand, I, too have a message for the 52.

When you were less than 52, and you called upon the assassination of the President, did we demand a government reprisal for your political speech? When McCain/Palin supporters marched the streets of NYC to express themselves, were you there to shout them down? Were you there offering the middle finger? When you, as one of the 52 who supported Obama, wore a shirt calling Governor Palin a “c__t,” were you aware of the irony in your behavior?

Do you offer your hands in reconciliation merely because you are victorious? Had we been the 48, but still won the electoral college, and your Dear Leader offered words of conciliation, would you have followed his lead? When we offer No Cover in the House for Pelosi’s overreaches, so much so that we can present her largesse for you to judge, will you give us the benefit of the doubt?

We share certain common goals:

• You may want a more educated public. I do, too, but not if it means that our students and their parents will not have the choice through school vouchers, among other things. Not if it means that our children will be indoctrinated by Leftist teachers. Not if it means that when one of our children go to school carrying our family values and beliefs, they will be publicly humiliated by their teachers. Not if it means that we will need a teacher’s license to home-school our children, as if working from home weren’t sacrifice enough.
• You may want “universal” health care. I do, too, but not if it means that the government will have a massive say in how we treat our bodies. Not if it means that we may lose our jobs for eating unhealthy food, or smoking, or drinking. Not if it means that our choice of doctors will be limited. Not if it means that our doctors themselves will have to have the means they recommend pre-approved by some pencil-pusher who thinks they know what is better for a patient.
• You may want a “greener environment.” I do, too, but not if it means regulating to death aspects of our personal lives. Not if it means that our choices of energy solutions are hobbled by an “if it isn’t perfect, it isn’t good enough” approach.
• Finally, you may want peace on earth and mercy mild. I do, too, but not if it means that we will bring our soldiers home in shame and defeat. Not if it means that we will not finish the job in Afghanistan. Not if it means that we will leave the relatively free nations of Eastern Europe defenseless against a resugent Russia. Not if it means that we will leave G-d’s children in Israel to fend for themselves against Iran.

To the 52: we are not that different. We share common goals. But if you ever care to listen about how you and the 48 differ, it’s in the means. It’s in the methods. Our respective sides will always believe our methods are better. This is life.

True students—not dilletantes—of history have an approach to the wheel of time that few people embroiled in current events do. The further back in time one gazes, the less important smalle details become, but the expression of patterns gets stronger. In my first post I introduced the Postulate of Cyclical Politics: The root of Conservative demise is hypocrisy. The root of Liberal demise is excess. There is always the political demise of one side or the other, but it is never permanent. In a democratic system (or republican, should you wish to be more “correct:), power changes hands peacefully with the understanding that the constituents have spoken and that the defeated will have the chance to regroup, rethink, and re-present their case to the people.

History is littered with the corpses of tyrants who didn’t know their limits. Having originated from a developing nation, I truly admire the civility and decency with which American politics is executed. Setting aside, of course, the occasional political violence. Look at the pattern: at what point in American history was a political victory used to physically punish the political minority? In a way, my experience in civic participation in the Philippines came at little risk; after the overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos, political dissent was a fashionable thing there, considering that it didn’t require the kind of bravery one would ascribe to Aung San Suu Kyi (her politics aside and all). I am glad that ours is unlike Zimbabwe, where Mugabe’s opponents seek asylum from other countries. But you know, sometimes, I wonder: for how long will it be that way here?

How do I see myself here at RedState? I am not wont to get into discussions of who should be the new Whip (Cantor) or Minority Leader (Boehner has b*lls but not much more). Policy wonking is for policy wonks. Arguing the merits of one person over the other is not my cup of tea.

I have a tendency to take a long of view of things, and most of my opinions here will follow that view.

We know that everything cycles, and now that BHO is president-elect and Pelosi has her majority, I can only wonder: do they really know what that means for them? Are the lessons of history theirs to ponder, despite the near-absolute power they may yield? Will they govern through excess and ensure a quicker defeat? If they are truly not quaking in their boots at the idea, if they truly believe they have the same mandate that GWB boisterously spoke of in 2004, theirs will be the Leftist version of GWB’s first term in office. As for us, if we repeat the mistake of trying to win for the sake of winning, we will turn the cycle too quickly. If we do that, we will waste our turn before we even get a chance to affect anything. When we do get our turn, we need to learn to brace for defeat when we start to hit the bottom of the cycle and be prepared months before the foreseeable electoral defeat. In the long view, the longer we have time to spend on top, the better we can prep for the time at the bottom. The goal is to keep the Democrats in power for as little time possible.

In the short view, we need to remember to present from a position of authenticity: oppose profligate spending by a full, partywide no-earmarks policy. Stop running on a moral conservative platform if you know you will one day be found with a dead girl or a live boy in your bed. Show some darn discipline, and discipline those who won’t show it. Show that we are for limited government by slowly but surely repealing or replacing excessive measures. The Republican Collapse of 2006 was no accident. Always remember that.

Perhaps the greatest pain that a Conservative has to live with is the realization that while things change around them, while certain things need to be changed as a matter of necessity, incremental change is most important. Sometimes, we may not even live to see the results of what we do. Sending the message of incremental change and freedom in reform to an electorate addicted to instant gratification is the challenge. All else will come from this and as long as we keep that in mind, we might just be able to pull this off in two years. We have to be ready to pull this off in two years.

No offense to Ruffini, et.al. but I don’t think my opinions there would matter much. Too RNC-insider-ish. That and I’ve been lurking here for four years, and boy do I miss Tac, a lot.

So. McCain lost the election, yes? It’s a bummer, and reading the folks all over the place is an even bigger bummer. Finger-pointing has already come up to a shrill level, but the truth is, the only post-mortem that speaks to me is Dan’s.

Build the base, yes? Jindal was on FNC tonight talking about how the GOP has left conservative values behind. We all know we have to hit the ground running, we have to find good and willing candidates who can oust incumbent Democrats in 2010, and that basically, there’s plenty of work to be done.

I want to share a persona Postulate of Cyclical Politics which almost always helps me keep a level head and peace of mind on knowing that there is no such thing as a permanent majority: The root of Conservative demise is hypocrisy. The root of Liberal demise is excess.