Her argument demonstrates the core issue that Milton Friedman leveled on deficit-inducing packages and has been repeated by Blackhedd and others (including myself) here. That is, money directed by such practices does not encourage spending at all. Rather it typically gets treated as a “rainy day fund” and gets essentially taken out of circulation–the worst fate possible in an economic downturn.

The reason for this is people do not spend money just because they have it. They spend on needs, and then they deal with discretionary income according to self-interest. That is, it’s rooted in human nature. And much of economics (in terms of spending/saving issues, at least) is nothing if not the study of self-interest. If a person is not convinced that they will have a job in 6 months, or their current job situation is not adequate for their concerns, then rather than spend the money, they will save it. And they will save it by essentially stuffing it in the mattress. The money will not get used in the economy, because they have no confidence in the economy. And in terms of growing a national economy, money going into the mattress is the last thing you want.

Historically, these stimulus packages have been one of the ways we created stagflation. Inflation due to deficit spending is a given. More money will be printed to cover the short-term costs of the packages incurred, that will increase inflation and reduce the value of the currency. But it’s an unavoidable side-effect that Keynes even admitted in these applications. But, what Keynes was wrong about, was that such spending would incur more spending. Since it does not, but rather merely reshuffles the economic debt, thus producing economic stagnation as well, you get the before-Keynes unheard of phenomenon of stagflation. As an axiom (not an absolute), Government cannot produce wealth. It can only redistribute wealth. And these stimulus packages never produce wealth. They simply shuffle it from one sector of the economy to another.

The Obama tax plan, btw also represents an economic disaster of this sort.. The fact that he is backing off this is ironically encouraging news. His “tax cut” actually would function in real economic terms as a tax increase on the economy. Temporary shifts that scale function the same in economic terms as a marginal tax rate increase. So the money gets saved on the anticipation (again) of a future economic hardship. This is also why Bush’s stimulus failed.

The best solution to an economic downturn is long-term reinvestment and encouragement of productivity in the workplace. That is, in simplest terms, a long-term reduction in tax rates, coupled with incentives towards reinvestment in the economy. The Auto Industry is being hammered in no small part right now because they languish in a state with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the country. But they are not addressing that issue. Or the issue of their over-priced labor forcing them to sell cars for $1000 less than Toyota USA. Instead, we are being called on to pay for their mergers in a program that would do nothing but cause us to repeat the failure.

Already we are being told the bank stimulus didn’t work…and another round of mortgage crisis looms. The banks, typically, did what ordinary Americans did with their “stimulus” money. They pocketed it, or gave it to their shareholders in a desperate bid to have the backing to stay in business. Loans are still essentially frozen, foreclosures still far above normal. This is not the first go-around with Detroit, nor will it be the last. Nor was it the first time we’ve dealt with the banks. Bailouts are bad economics. Stimulus packages do NOT stimulate. Insisting we keep trying them is repeating a bad idea in search of a different result (aka: insanity).

Yes folks. The reason why we lost is because those pesky social conservatives keep talking about God in public. And we need to dump the identification with married Evangelical Christians (and their values) if we seek to grow the Republican Party.

Now, I have no problem with growing the party past the base. But Parker in this article combines incredible duplicity with remarkable short-sightedness. GHWB, for all his failures as a conservative, ran as one. He never hid his association with Social Conservatives. And he was competitive among Latinos. Latinos, simply put, are among the most social conservative groups on right-to-life and gay marriage issues in the country. That was shown on the Prop 8 vote. Who shot it down? Mormons? Not in terms of the vote. It was Blacks and Latinos who were otherwise voting on the Left who crossed over and shot that down. The harbinger of change Obama was quite muted on this issue, for good (if selfish) reason.

Simply put, SoCon issues do NOT hurt us among Latinos–except for the one she didn’t mention–immigration. The ham-handed articulation by our party of the immigration issue is THE cause of the shift of Latinos from being a battleground demographic which we should be competitive in to being full Blue this cycle.

Ironically, it’s Parker playing identity politics in this article, as much as she claims not to…and playing it poorly. She assumes that all Catholics think like the Northeastern liberal catholics she knows about. Time to get into flyover country, where you will discover that every Latino you talk to is, on every issue but immigration, every bit the equal of those Evangelical SoCons you despise.

The Jewish vote has gone Democrat for ages. That is not new. It makes no sense. But it’s hardly new. That isn’t a battleground ethnicity. It never has been, except among the Orthodox, who again make social issues and Israel a primary concern; and thus typically ally with SoCon Evangelicals. That they didn’t this time has more to do with the tepid nature of the McCain campaign and the utter repudiation by the majority of the American people of Bush’s governance in his second term.

The really amusing thing in all of this is, she had a Main Street Republican on the top of the ticket in McCain. Parker had everything she ‘claims’ she wanted to win. And instead she spent the campaign savaging Palin, savaging Evangelicals who did the legwork for a candidate we loathed, and ultimately undermined the party she claims to support. So if you can’t support the party when they give you what you want, how can we expect you to support the party ever Kathleen Parker? You had your RINO at the top of the ticket. The only thing you didn’t get was a RINO in the VP slot too. You lost, horribly but predictably.

You look across the country, and the Republicans who took a bath are, almost universally, in 06 and this election, the RINOs. The ones doing what you suggest in this article. That is, the ones mocking the “low brows” and chopping at the Social Conservative leg of the party. Why? Because a Social Conservative can’t be a Fiscal and National Security Conservative? That’s a lie. I’ve posted at least as many Fiscal issues as Social, and I served the country for 8 1/2 yrs in the Navy.

Because I’m too “low brow”? Oh, that was a classy line. It was a personal matter when she was called an idiot by those in the party for being a quisling in the campaign. But she can be a complete hypocrite and call those she disagreed with idiots. Because, of course, we all know that only unintelligent Evangelicals make for Social Conservatives.

Now, I may not like all that James Dobson does as a political activist, but I’m pretty sure he holds a better education than Kathleen Parker. Earned Doctorates trump Masters still. And I would love to hear her try to debate “unintelligent” evangelicals like D.A. Carson or Craig Blomberg. They would mop the floor with her. Calling people who have not had the opportunity you had less intelligent is foolhardy. And it demonstrates that there is a distinction between intelligence and wisdom. And it’s something I, even with an earned Masters, recognize.

And, Kathleen Parker, where or where did Sarah Palin make a large issue out of her Social Conservative views? When she was asked it, she answered. I guess she should have lied and sounded more “accomodating.” After all, McCain did so well accomodating the left in his campaign. The simple answer is, she didn’t. The media did. YOU did, parroting every line the left articulated about her without examining them.

So please, go back to your stumping for Romney, who contributed nothing to the Republican party and did nothing to grow it, and who is as inspiring as limp cabbage. I have to wonder if the reason Kathleen Parker is so quick to chop the SoCon leg of the party away is she knows that the only way her idol (a man who is as lifeless in person as if he were made from wood) will win the Republican nomination is if the SoCon’s bolt. I have to ask if she’s thought who will be left with her in that party of quislings with her? A self-proclaimed majority incapable of winning it’s home state?

Why should he really have been surprised? After all, over 200 economists, from across the political/economic spectrum, told him it would not work.

As Ronald Reagan said, the biggest lie in the English Language is; “I am with the government and I’m here to help.” The only near-surprising thing to me is that he claims he “knew” on October 3rd, when the bill was signed that the bailout would not work as intended.

I don’t know if I’m shocked it took him that long, or shocked he still ramrodded it down our throats when he knew it would be a failure. Seeing as home foreclosures are now 25% more than what they were last year at this time.. One in every 252 homes has received a notice. And Paulson says the funds will not be used to help buy up troubled mortgages. Rather, they will be directed into a myriad of industries, including buying up bank stock, and facilitating that oh-so-needed auto industry “investment.”

So basically, the TARP is being pulled over our eyes to nationalize industries at the whim of the man who told us in May 2008; “The worst is likely behind us” with regards to the sub-prime lending crisis. The man who told us that the crisis was “nearly over” on a monthly basis or “largely contained” throughout 2007 while foreclosures were going up and the housing bubble starting to collapse and our currency going with it.

This man prated and preened before the Democratic leaders of Congress, while John Boehner told us; “This is no time for ideological purity,” and my Representative, the thankfully outgoing Minority Whip Roy Blount shilled this debacle onto us. It is infuriating that these people sold out our movement, our principles, our party, and sent us into the wilderness for nothing other than their own selfish political interests. It is only moderately gratifying that they were too short-sighted to see that their “pragmatism” crushed them as well. Yes Boehner, get gone.

Oh, and just to top off the disaster, take a look at the top ten “sweeteners” used to ensure that those with any sense on the fiasco here would betray us. And I still want the list of the spineless worms who turned their back on their principles for the pork that was added to the bailout package and switched on our side from the rightly rejected part 1 to the pork-laden debacle we were handed.

The bottom line is, once again, the best solution would’ve been to let these companies die. Instead, by buying stock in them, we are institutionalizing their failure and ensuring that what Paulson claimed he did not want; “To have to do this again in a generation” is exactly what will happen. Though, given that the S&L crisis hit in the 90s, I think it’s much more likely that we are looking at repeating this debacle in under a decade.

Bailouts finance inefficiency. And let’s be clear, when we talk about taxpayer money, “financing inefficiency” means “Wasting your money“! Always have, always will. And anyone who says “We need to do something now!” When they are not sure it is the right thing to do, with the better part of a trillion dollars at stake, needs to be put out of their political misery, not allowed to make further decisions. And someone who knows that he is not going to do what he says as he forces us to swallow the poison pill (yes YOU Paulson) is an incompetent, spineless, useless worm.

That Chrysler bailout of our youth doesn’t seem nearly so smart an idea now, does it? Since part of the whole purpose of this bailout is so GM can merge with hapless Crysler. And of course, this merger will still cost 25% of the job force of the two companies. The math just gets better and better.

The simple fact is, the best thing for both companies right now is bankruptcy. Period. Cal Thomas makes a first class cost analysis of the way Detroit does business vs Toyota in his article here.. The research shows that via lower costs on labor per hour–significantly lower ($40 per hour!) Toyota saves more than $1000 per car for every vehicle made. And that is on vehicles that are made by Toyota USA! And this despite the typical Toyota USA worker getting near 6 figure incomes.

So what exactly is the UAW giving us for their efforts? A more inefficiently financed workforce, doing the same work for twice the money, in a state where the corporate tax rate is 38.9% (and actually higher, since the auto makers trigger the higher “gross receipts” penalty for 350,000 dollar sales) here.

The bottom line, as Thomas states, is that the Big Three are unionized and operate (primarily) from traditional Democrat strongholds. So they see it as political suicide not to act on their behalf. But these bailouts of the auto industry will not save 100,000 jobs, as Nancy Pelosi repeatedly tells us.

Just the opposite. The Big Three will still have to slash 30,000 factory jobs plus “other salaried” positions (according to the WSJ article cited above). What’s more, the claim that the bailout is necessary to “save the companies from bankruptcy” is, itself, fallacious. The creditors, as Thomas notes, treated the Chrysler bailout as at least a partial bankruptcy. They will again this time. The companies avoid the pain of restructuring, and does anyone deny Chrsyler NEEDED restructuring now? And instead their shareholders will pocket our money for failing to anticipate the market while the workers get the shaft anyway.

All this is, of course, aside from the question as to whether or not businesses can ever be expected to succeed if they face no penalty for failure. The Government has shown itself spineless when it comes to Detroit already, why should they deny the “US Auto Industry” (which is much more now than the not-so-big-three, but don’t say that around anyone in a Union or a protectionista) anything.

So the bailout won’t save jobs. It won’t facilitate restructuring the companies. It won’t improve the competitiveness of our auto industry. It won’t make things better for the economy. And it won’t represent in any way, shape, or form, a benefit to the taxpayer. Other than that, it’s a perfectly good deal if you’re trying to cover your tail with the unions. The good news is once no one will take our government’s loans anymore, this insanity “will” actually end. Hopefully that will be sometime before the country actually has to declare bankruptcy and our currency tanks again due to our excessive indebtedness (among other factors).

At this point, Gingrich has too many self-inflicted wounds, too much dirt, and has real past personal issues that will not play well with much of the base. He’s a loyal soldier, a great leader, and we need him to be more influential in the party, but he went into “kingmaker” mode for a reason. And I think that is honestly the best place for him.

That said, if you want him to be kingmaker, why not give him the ultimate position from which to do it? Can you name a better person to confront the machine the Democrats constructed this past cycle head on? I cannot. There is no one better in terms of doing for our party what Dean did for the Democrats than Gingrich.

In terms of ideas and articulating them, there is probably no one better than Gingrich. Not even Fred Thompson, who is often mentioned, matched Gingrich in his ability to articulate Conservative ideas on both populist and intellectual levels. Thompson is great as a policy wonk, no two ways about it. I think he’s impressive in this, I’m just saying Gingrich does it better.

From the standpoint of mobilizing a militant opposition, who better than the most successful Minority Leader we have had, and probably either party has had? He understands the way to wage this battle, as he has done it successfully before. And more to the point; at a time our party needs to get away from the Bush years and the moderates of the party who led us into the ditch and destroyed the majority that “we” built; what better way to signal our defiance than raising the standard of someone who has beaten them thoroughly before? The ideas we rallied around and articulated in the Contract are the ideas that have, largely, been forgotten since the “Main Street Republicans” got their way, so if everything old can be new again on the left, why not for us as well?

Sure, he would attract a lot of media attention. Perhaps some of it for his past. But at this point, that is also a good thing in a real sense. Many candidates we could name would be in a position to be easily marginalized. If we do not elevate a true polarizing figure, we will not be heard. The duty of an opposition; both in terms of it’s own survival and for the betterment of democracy; is to make sharp divisions between itself and the party in power. Anything that attracts attention to our leaders gives us a chance to articulate our vision–if our leaders share our vision, that is–and that means it is a positive for us even if it starts as a smear or character attack. I admit, Newt has lots of character flaws to attack. But so did Howard Dean. RNC is a place that most accentuates his virtues while minimizes the impact of his past transgressions.

I would say Gingrich would also be great in terms of increasing our grassroots, internet, and fundraising efforts as well. I cannot honestly think of a better name that could be put forward to lead the party and make sure that those who created this mess are gone for good and all. Put a lightning rod where he can attract attention. Put a Kingmaker close to the Throne so he can pull the strings. He’s won for us before. I can think of no one better to win for us again.

To which I will say, “Yes and no.” I have struggled with this my entire adult life. Having been a Conservative longer than I have been a practicing, Bible-believing Christian, this is a perplexing question to me. And I will be honest. I have been frustrated for over a decade with how easily the Evangelical Church has been fooled into believing political power equals hearts and minds won for the Kingdom of God. Lots of people who I respect in the evangelical church have gotten far too interested in the use of political power over the subversive nature of the Gospel of Christ. Having legitimately become politically aware citizens in the latter half of the last century, we have made ourselves into a mega-special interests group in this one. One that can be ignored by an entire party. One that seeks to rule over our culture. But the Gospel is most effective as a counter-culture medium, and always has been. One need do no more than read the Book of Acts to see the evidence for this.

This is so because the Gospel, by nature, radically transforms those who embrace it. One can no longer be the same. The Kingdom of God is a subversive thing in this world. And our hope is in the age to come. The age to come manifests in part for us, but never in whole in this life. Ultimately, we don’t win, God does. So with all this true, you would think that I would embrace what Thomas says.

Not so fast, my friends. We live in this world for this life. And we are responsible for all our actions in this life. If we believe, then part of our obligation as believers is to be dutiful citizens (Romans 15). Indeed, the best of citizens. We are responsible, as Christians, to do our best to create the best environment for living we can, that is part of being good citizens in a democracy. So we must be informed. We must vote our conscience. And our conscience should be guided always by Biblical values…Kingdom values that we hold and share first before other issues.

The problem is not that Christians are involved in the political process. We ought to be, as we should be involved in every part of life and culture. Always subverting it with Kingdom values. The problem is we have gotten so full of ourselves and our political importance that we act as if we’re the Republican equivalent of the unions on the left. “Ignore us and we’ll browbeat you out of the party.” I make no bones about being a social conservative. Nor do I say that I will ever sacrifice a core social conservative issue; ever, period. What I do say is that there are a number of moral issues that Christians can and should act upon. And Biblically, not all of them are 100% traditionally conservative views. So why are we wrapped up as one special interest group?

Generally, our interests lie best with the Right. That is because the Right’s traditional values are mostly informed by Christian society. The left isn’t going to accept what we believe. On gay marriage, they call our position hate speech. On abortion, we are “draconian.” Now, do I believe we ought to be more capable of expressing our views in a loving way? Yes. But look at Sarah Palin, she expresses her views on life more eloquently than a dozen sermons on Genesis 1 through her life. And she is savaged by the media for it. Does anyone really think the Democrats have room for those who have what are politically called “social conservative” issues? I don’t see it.

What I do see is the need to have our voice monopolized less by leaders in Colorado Springs and Washington, and more synthesized into a harmonious whole through the lives of thousands of people who will be savaged by the likes of Kathleen Parker and George Will (I used to respect you, sir–where did the George Will who identified with Americana through Bruce Springsteen go?). The first can be ignored as just “any” special interest group. The second will subvert all it comes in contact with and change all who know it for the better, no matter what the wisdom of this age may say. But that does not mean we should go back to the post-Scopes Trial era of political inactivity. Nor does it mean our activity will be uniform through the political spectrum in the future.

We live in Two Kingdoms. Our Hope is ultimately in the Kingdom of Heaven. But our duty is still to make our way through this life making a world that most reflects what would make our God pleased in His children.

Despair and anger are natural reactions this week. A lot of time and energy went into something that failed. What’s more, the circular firing squad poisoned the atmosphere even before the end. A lot of comparisons are being made in the media to 1992. Those aren’t the best comparisons. 1976 is a better comparison point on any number of levels, as I have claimed here before. Just as in 76, a “hope and change” candidate beat an “incumbent” that was saddled with problems not of his making. That McCain allowed himself to be painted as the incumbent without any real objection until the final debate is one of many tactical errors he made in the campaign. One I have already said was the worst run campaign in ‘my’ living memory by either party. But shooting the wounded won’t help us any more. It’s time to move on, and get on with the business of being the loyal opposition.

How can we maintain an effective Conservative voice and reinvigorate the movement? How can we establish where Pres-elect Obama is out of step with the American people and triangulate him out of his sure-to-come excesses? How can we move forward from here instead of allowing ourselves to sink in a morass of self-doubt and loathing. Let me humbly suggest some points that I consider worthy of merit.

1) As has been repeated by many here. The “moderate Republican;” “me-too Democrat-Lite;” “Main Street Republican”; or “big government conservative” experiment is dead. Period. It was a SHAM from the beginning. It killed the base in 96. And let’s be perfectly clear on this; despite the slander on Sarah Palin from certain quarters, the base would have been DEAD this election if not for her. She saved McCain from complete ruin. He ought to say so. But he won’t, because he’s back to being Mr Bi-partisan. How clear on this should we be? Simple…in four years time, if the Republican Establishment gives us another “moderate” as their candidate, we should say adios regardless of the VP pick.

If they don’t get that moderates and “pragmatists” are losers, then it’s time they sit in their cubicle above the Dow Jones and moan about how they never win again like they did before Goldwater and Reagan saved the party. The Republican Party brand name is not what unites us. It is our ideals of the Country that unite us. If the party will not learn the lesson, the party “leaders” who took us to this place can have their empty tea party with no one to vote for them. We should not hold our nose and vote for a candidate who does not represent us ever again.

It was not Conservatism that took a bath on election night, period. Cantor won w/ well over 60% of the vote on a night that the rest of Virginia went Blue. Bachmann survived despite Cole bailing on her and her case of foot-in-mouth. You go down the list of losers for Republicans, and most, if not all, were the moderates, the pragmatists. The “bi-partisans” Elizabeth Dole and John McCain both essentially lost because their opponent was able to run to the right of them. One would think the lesson learned. But just after the concession, there is Kay Bailey Hutchinson (who I thought had sense) talking about how we cannot afford to look “obstructionist” and must work “in a bi-partisan way.”

No, we don’t have to. Honestly, the American People rebuked the two-party system on Nov 4. They want 1 party rule for at least 2 years. Fine, make the Democrats govern. If the people want what they are shilling so bad, let the Democrats try to feed it to the people. Let’s see what they say then. My bet is, they will be begging us to use the filibuster until they can rectify things in 2 yrs time.

2) It’s time to educate the American people on what conservative principles are again. And do it in a way the average person can understand. Why did Joe the Plumber resonate? Well, because although everyone likes to hear about how the rich will get soaked when you’re not rich; no one likes to hear you’re the one about to get hosed.

I humbly suggest that there be a “refresher” class on key Conservative values propagated from this site. The purpose of it being not to tell people what they don’t know, but to demystify what they DO know. And to be able to better articulate ‘why’ it is so to the average person who does not think on these things often. I considered doing this a week ago with Free Trade. But I thought it presumptive of me at the time. And before the election seemed the wrong time. But now is a good time in my estimation.

3) I heartily endorse Operation Leper, and posted such on Erick’s thread. But I suggest we need to go further. We need to not just attack those who would shoot the wounded in the Movement. We need to identify strong candidates now for leadership in the House, Senate, and party. And we need to identify strong candidates ‘now’ for 2 years hence.

4) We need to establish our own narrative about why the left has it wrong now. We let Howard Dean steal the narrative from us. And we got fed the Health Care and Union sob story to defeat. Now we need to learn the lesson, and find our voice, and those who will speak the words, and get to work changing the narrative, so that the media in 2 years (or 4) is speaking in our terms. It worked with the Contract Republicans in 94. It can work again.

Finally, again from Churchill…”Never, ever, ever give up.”

I am struck by the defeatism that seems rampant in this post. First it assumes a loss in this election when the polls are showing things as close as even. Bad idea.

Second, it all but assumes we ‘would likely lose’ against an incumbent Obama in 2012…I really don’t get that at all. If the blinders don’t fall off for people before the election, I think it likely people will have a true collective awakening shortly after (a conceivable) Obama’s agenda gets unfurled in truth. Carter part 2 seems likely to me. Indeed, in many ways, the comparisons between this election and 76 are numerous. The unknown candidate of “hope” being shown against a Republican candidate who was being taken to task by the electorate for things that really weren’t his doing. A recipe for a mandate it is not.

Third, there is the candidate proposed. I cannot fathom the love affair of some with Romney. I’ve made my view on him clear. He’s a hopeless, spineless panderer. Nothing shows the weakness of his resolve and inability to reflect a true conservative agenda than his protectionist song and dance in the Michigan Primary. Everything about the man was based on his ability to conceal his “moderate”/Pragmatist record as Gov. of Mass. and say he had “evolved” as a candidate past his pro-choice, milktoast on gay marriage days.

But when push came to shove, he ran right back to the leftist trough. He ate of the same old slop that he served as Governor to pander to voters no matter the cost to him later on.

Let’s be perfectly clear on this…if Romney was what the conservative movement OR the Republican Party had wanted or needed, he would have won. No one wanted McCain in the Primary. He was the candidate that was left because everyone else was a failure. Great, Romney has big doners from the Republican Establishment.

Guess what? Those are the very people who should NOT be left in control of the party any longer. Those are the very people who have refused to take the lessons of our past wins to heart and insisted on shackling McCain and make him run Bush 92 all over again. Because it worked oh-so-well the first time! They are pragmatic panderers with no agenda who are not willing to make sharp contrasts between our ideology and that of the left, because the media has told them we don’t make our case well. Really? I seem to recall winning on that case under Gingrich. And winning big.

So please, don’t hand us a lapdog of the Establishment and tell us he can give us a meaningful vision of the Republican future. He’s already painted us a career picture of what he does. It wasn’t what we wanted. If we want a Republican Gov. to lead the party, I can name two. Both are currently serving. Hopefully one will be serving in a higher office in January. The other was considered for the same and has effectively served two terms as the most conservative Gov of Minnesota since the 20s.

So let’s step away from the tired East Coast Establishment and their pragmatist selections. Contrary to the assertion of some, we don’t win when pragmatists run, because pragmatists don’t give us a vision to run on. And Romney didn’t have one either, which was why he gave us a different Romney every state. If we want to actually change the party…which regardless of the outcome on the 4th, we need to do…we need to bring in someone who will actually change things. Not someone who talks about being different and then does the same old same old when the chips are down. Put the stake through Romney. If we wanted him, we would’ve taken him this time.

Why is it that the popular vote is considered the end-all-be-all of who should govern a nation. So someone runs up two or three large states that lean left 65/35 and can ignore the rest of the nation and deserves to govern why? They already get a huge electoral vote share for winning those states.

But it seems that anytime these “proposals” get floated, they come from the coast and seem determined to prove that California and New York should dictate to what they call “Flyover country” who governs the 30 states that typically disagree with them.

Why someone should win the Presidency but winning 4 states big and losing 2/3rds of them has yet to be adequately explained. Nor has it been explained why the Founders of the country were no longer correct in their assertion that pure democracy promotes demagoguery. In fact, this election cycle demonstrates quite well, to my mind, what happens when the engines of what is supposed to be free elections are subverted in the “interests” of the mob.

1) Voter Registration fraud rampant by a group fronting for one candidate.

2) The Election commission unusable because it is rigged, contrary to law, to bias to one party. Again, rigged to the same candidate.

3) The media being in the tank completely for that same candidate. Refusing to run stories that are critical of him. Refusing to take seriously the critical remarks made of him by people in their own party. Denouncing those who disagree with the one as racist on his behalf, and giving him a free pass as he plays the race card from the bottom of the deck again and again…that in itself is patent demagoguery.

None of these articles or opinions ever deal with the core issue. Which is not the issue of “multiple candidates being sifted through” as this article claims. Indeed, campaigning for the office of the Presidency was considered a practice beneath the office until the Civil War. The core issue was that mass population centers tend towards demagoguery and radical ideology. And they also tend towards dictating that on their neighbors. The Founders did not want that ideology or mass hysteria or cult of personality infecting the whole electorate, so the electoral college was created. In an election where one candidate is clearly running a campaign based on the cult of personality, it’s very hard to believe the Founders were not right and the College is still not necessary.

Their argument was based not on the vagueries of the political systems of their day. But rather an understanding of human nature. That has not changed. Contrary to popular belief, the former days were not better than today (Solomon tells us such is not wisdom to say), but they were also not worse when it regards to human nature. We’re still manipulative, grasping, and cynical when operating in a collective. And thus the system we have is still the best one for mitigating those negative impulses.

The Blue Shirts in authority?

Let’s ask a few questions about this, shall we?

1) Any idea where the budget money will come for this? It seems a rather LARGE expenditure of funds.

2) Who does this group report to? The FBI? NSA? YOU?! Please, do tell us where this group fits in the structure of national security.

3) What criterion are you using to select these people? What experience and training do they have. Where do they get it?

4) Why not simply augment existing internal federal security like the FBI and the Secret Service? Why do we need a NEW federal police force?

Or was this simply a gaffe Obama wants to forget?

What always interests me is that they assume Republicans are incapable of winning whenever there is a failure in a general election ever again. We heard it most of the Clinton years. “Landslide” they said, even though there was a minor detail that Clinton never got 50% of the popular vote. And no Democrat since Carter 1976 has, and the Democratic party he ran under is hardly anything like the party is today. Yet somehow, a very mediocre campaigner, the son of an absolutely atrocious campaigner, neither of whom were truly conservative at heart, won twice.

Setting aside the question of whether BHO’s election is a ‘done deal’ which I am not sure of; though I concede McCain really has to find something that resonates now; this is simply a repetition of a tired old bromide that we heard in 92 and 96 as the Left crowed it’s triumphs.

So, as a way of a history lesson, let me illustrate a couple points. In 1964, a Republican Senator from Arizona was eviscerated by the media and betrayed by his party’s leadership in a way that seems…familiar to me in this election. I was not alive to see Barry Goldwater’s march through the wilderness that gave birth to the modern Conservative Movement, but I am very much a child of that journey. In the course of that campaign, Goldwater through aside the old party leadership, and passed the torch emphatically to a new leader, one who shared his vision of modern Conservatism. He gave a television spot to an ex-actor who became Gov. of California, then Pres. in his own right: Ronald Wilson Reagan. That horrific defeat, the most lopsided Republican defeat of the post-WW2 era, set the stage for the triumphs of 72, 80, 84 and 88. It set the stage for a generation of young Republicans energized by Reagan’s New Federalism and a belief in this country’s greatness. It gave us a message we can win with whenever we tap into it to the American people, a message the Left often tries to co-opt or obscure with fear. This cycle is might work. But it does in no small part because McCain is a pragmatic, and he surrounded himself with pragmatics.

Despite the fact he’s a pragmatic, and not a true conservative, he is in touch enough with Goldwater’s vision to know that a campaign is not just about winning for yourself or your party in the near term. It’s about establishing leaders for the future. The Democrats savaged Palin not because she was inexperienced–after all, Obama is set to become the most inexperienced Chief Executive in the 20th century at this point–but because she represents a very Reagan-esque figure. A person who should, in the eyes of the Left, be theirs. But she has rejected them and embraced the Conservative Movement instead. And the Left, rather than analyze why it has went wrong when it loses people like her, instead savaged her. The Republican establishment has reacted to her as it has not because she’s a failure. Just the opposite. They’re scared.

They’ve invested themselves in Romney. They believe him to be the answer for us. The whole NRO crowd was in his corner. The fact that the rank and file conservatives by and large considered him as appealing as milquetoast and chose an unknown Ark. Gov as the voice of the Conservative Movement over Romney does not seem to matter to them. They love him, he’s east coast. He’s known to them. He’s not someone from fly-over country. The fact that every conservative view Romney says he has he “evolved” into since he held office, and the fact that when pressed for a win in Michigan, he came out sounding like John Edwards somehow escapes them. The fact he’s spineless and soulless seems not to matter to them either. They want him. They can have him. We know him, we reject him. Pragmatics aren’t conservatives. And ironically enough, pragmatics don’t govern as well as ideologues.

In 1992, Bill Clinton won the Presidency. This was supposed to be a crushing blow. Never mind George Bush the elder couldn’t have won a campaign for city dog catcher without a Karl Rove-led machine behind him. Never mind he told the people “No new taxes” and then did the most colossal flip-flop of the decade. Never mind he was the ultimate pragmatist and had zero understanding of economics. This was a supposed death knell to the right…how he qualified as “Right wing” has yet to be explained to any Conservative’s satisfaction, seeing as he managed to nominate THE most liberal and activist member of the current Supreme Court.

But instead of that election being a failure, what happened? When I was a child, I was told Republicans would never…EVER win the House of Representatives. The gerrymandering and election procedures were too much in the Democrat’s favor now. Ironically, the ineptitude of the Congressional leadership coupled with people’s abject horror at an unchecked Clinton’s policies, married with an inspired campaign by Newt Gingrich led to the Contract with America and easily the most profound upset in the 20th century politically.

It was that loss of 92 that crystalized to the base of the party that pragmatist candidates are losers. It was that loss that demonstrated when we talk conservative principles in a way people can grasp to the American people, we win. Just like with Reagan. The establishment out east still hasn’t quite figured this out yet. They’re too busy telling us why we should think like the left. You see, it’s easier to do what pragmatists try to do to win. Parrot new-deal politics, bastardize it with pseudo-fiscal conservatism, and then launch character attacks to hide the fact you have no ideas of your own. It’s easier, but it doesn’t win unless the opponent throws himself on a hand grenade for you. Democrats are often good at this for us (See Dukakis-tank episode) but it can’t be counted on.

It’s harder to actually frame an agenda on our principles and stick to it and speak it in a way common folks understand. Protectionism sounds good…until they realize that Toyota employs a WHOLE LOT of American workers. Gov’t sponsored Health Care sounds good, until you see the debacle that results whenever you want a treatment the Gov’t deems “non-essential” in places that have it. More regulations sound good, until people see what those books look like, and realize it’s a miracle any business could ever thrive under something written like our legal codes are. Class warfare sounds good, until you can show people that low taxes makes for more freedom to spend, which gets the engine of the economy running.

McCain hasn’t been able to stick to…or even form…such a message. That’s the fault of his campaign. Whether that’s him or his staffers is for the future to judge…and he might find something these last few weeks. It’s happened before. But that doesn’t signal the end of the Movement. The left will crow that it does. But really all this does is show the Establishment; which gave us a choice of McCain (who really never was a true conservative) and Romney (who wanted to play the part, but is a spineless flip-flopper at heart); does not get that Conservatives win. If we lose, it’s quite possibly BEST for the future of the movement. For it will allow the idiots who gave us this choice to be discredited, and us to find our soul again. And when we do, we win.

Think the mainstream media will backtrack on this. And I would expect the ESPN washout KO to trot that bromide out without verifying it. But you think that respectable news organizations would actually check a story…

wouldn’t you?

Maybe next election cycle the media will do it’s job.

Update: Guess not, instead the media is claiming a ’second’ instance of the shout. Though one article at least mentioned “no one other than the Scranton reporter is known to have heard” the first instance.

Ahem…even if this instance is true…doesn’t this make it properly the ‘first’?

And what about planned firebombing of private property? lawn sign thefts? vandalism of vehicles? Any mention of these Obamabot crimes? Tell me, are a few careless and tasteless words really worse than what the Obama truth squads and blue shirts are doing?

I’ll admit that the third question is one I might miss if someone caught me distracted on the phone. I don’t tend to think of Gordon Brown unless I’m watching the overseas news. And then only in the context of the collapse of Labour.

I was actually a bit surprised that H&C and Rush audiences outscored even NPR on aggregate. But it does illustrate a point. Conservatives tend to be astute, regardless of education level, and more aware. The left is willing to play to platitudes because they understand the politics of the mob. But since the Republicans (and Reagan in particular) were blamed for “sound bite politics,” this would seem to belie that. You don’t need to do sound bites with people who are aware of their surroundings.

Speaking of the politics of demogoguery. The other night an Obamabot at work was telling another person; “You need to listen to everything for yourself. Check all the facts.” Then he goes on telling us how the Economic crisis has nothing to do with Fannae and Freddy, that it’s all “deregulation.” Basically parroting the Obama line, amusing enough. So I called him on it with the facts. Saying that I am no lover of John McCain, but that this is the one issue he was dead right about. And that Obama, Frank, Dodd, and HRC were in bed w/ Fannae/Freddy.

He hemmed and hawed and said, “Well then Bush should’ve stopped it” and then changed the subject until finally he ended with; “Well, Obama’s going to win anyway.”

To that I shrugged and said, “I don’t know. But the country survived 8 years of Bill Clinton. It will survive four years of Obama. Then his criminal ties won’t be able to be hidden anymore.” And he went off in a huff.

A couple days later, my manager comes to me and says that someone did not like my political views. And that he said I “insulted” someone (he did not say who). When my manager asked him who I insulted and how, he hemmed and hawed and said, “Well, I don’t want to rat anyone out.” (Like he hadn’t done it already.)

To which I would now say; “Yes, if calling you an Obamabot, as I did above, is an insult, you have NOW been insulted.” Though categorizing the truth as an insult is the hallmark of the dissent-crushing left. It is not enough for liberals to try to win this election (for which they have every right, and honestly have run a far superior campaign than our candidate…who had run his campaign essentially backwards since the convention, IMHO) they must also insist on ensuring that all those who disagree are either indoctrinated, forced to accept their views as the public discourse, or be threatened with physical, economic, or property harm. And this from those who call themselves “Democrats.”

I would say this final thing. The conduct of Obama’s minions in this campaign illustrates perfectly well why the Founders of the Country wanted a Republic, and not a democracy. The mob rule that has governed the discourse of this campaign from the left. The rampant demogoguery. The Orwellian “truth squads” the “Blue shirts” and the viral videos from Axelrod’s PR firms that were outright fabrications would be utterly shameful if the mainstream media had the integrity to cover them truthfully. I will content myself with knowing regardless of the outcome of this election, you will be found out.

Oopsie…duplicate voters via ACORN

Hey, don’t worry, after all, they’re the “Democratic party.” This brought to us by the party that illegally substituted Carnehan for the Senate to beat Ashecroft and routinely holds East St. Louis open until 3am while closing down the rest of the state on time.

I have to concede that Brokaw did a manfully fair job in the debate. But do you think that fairness will extend to issues like this? And since the Congress refuses to admit the Republican appointee of the “bipartisan” election commission, do you really think these issues will be properly addressed?

Yes…stealing votes across the nation. And nary a word from the MSM.

I have made my view on the bailout clear. This solves nothing, helps nothing. And no, we don’t live in a “post-bailout age.” We only live in the age between this bailout and the next desperate, doomed-to-fail attempt to reinflate the bubble and foist the current monetary mess on the middle class doomed to live under an inescapable debt burden.

That said, I can accept that some people felt, for whatever reason, that they had to hold their nose and vote for this. Lack of understanding the economic details, loyalty to this President, misguided belief that this is actually best for the country. I can accept being wrong or overly loyal or what have you.

What I cannot accept is those who sold their votes for a tax cut. Who were too craven to stand up for their convictions less than 1 week after making them known. Who bowed to internal Congressional pressure for a bill that HALF the country still does not want, and 50% more are against than for.

This is not representative democracy changing their votes. It’s pork-barrel politics being used to buy their concession. It’s selling out their convictions, their constituents, and their nation for a fleecing on the basis of items added that make this bill LESS fiscally responsible than before.

Oh..and a personal message to Roy Blount, my Rep who whipped this bill. I will never, EVER vote for you again. Thank you for selling out conservatism.

I read the old National Review, with Buckley’s acid wit lambasting the left (and liberal Republicans most of all, Lieberman got his Senate seat in part because of a Buckley endorsement). And I was drawn to the Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk’s thundering statement of the coming revolution. The Primer that Reagan and those who came with him lived by. And I learned the central truth of that work…”Ideas have consequences.” The maxim of modern conservatism, something that increasingly gets dropped from sight in modern discourse.

The past few days I’ve lurked more than posted, my family was in, so that had something to do with it. But also because I’ve been thinking how to say this. The Bailout debate has bothered me. The claim that there are some of us who are “Conservatives first and Republicans second” is what finally crystalized this in my mind. And I’ll answer this part first…

Guilty as charged.

If the Republican party throws over the Conservative Movement, there’s no way in the infernal regions I will stay a Republican. Period. If the Republican party is no longer the party of Goldwater, Reagan, and the Contract with American, then we should just fold up shop and leave it to the “Me too Republicans” who are more interested in doing the “little new deal” with the Democrats than winning an election with pragmatists who will sell us out anyway.

What’s worse, history has shown that the pragmatists LOSE, the ideological candidates win. Reagan overturned the entire political dialogue in the country for a generation with his revolution. He invigorated countless youth…who the Republican aparatchniks managed to fritter away on the Bushes and Doles and pragmatist Establishment Republicans. When Gingrich tapped into that vein with the contract of America, he won the biggest turnabout victory of all time. I can remember the pundits pontificating the Republicans would NEVER regain control of the House. That the numbers and districts were too skewed against us to win. It wasn’t a charming face that won…or a dozen of them. It was an ideology of limited government and free markets and limited taxation that won.

The same, to a lesser extent with Bush in 2000 with “Compassionate Conservatism” winning an election he had no rational reason to win against the picked VP of a reasonably popular president in a time of prosperity. Even Bush the elder in 88 proves this…”No new taxes.” And he was able to use that, and the gaffes of his opponent, to win. In fact, he proves the point completely. Because he governed “pragmatically.” And so we got the tax increase of 90, David Souter, and me too leadership that led to him being bereft of ideas or claim to the Revolution in 92, and thus, as George Will so aptly put it; “By the pragmatists only standard, he is a failure.”

Republicans don’t win by running pragmatic campaigns. They don’t capture the populace by governing “pragmatically.” People don’t WANT government in the way. McCain claims to get that. But his actions in the bailout debate belie that. His choice of Palin made me hope that he really did get it. That ideology DOES matter to the American people, who are, at their core, distrustful of government interference. But his actions in a bailout that economists across the spectrum say is a bad idea prove he doesn’t. That he’s what I always thought he was, a pragmatist. Just like Romney, just like the Bushes, just like Dole. And when Republicans talk about being “pragmatic” they are inviting defeat.

The bailout debate shouldn’t be about how deep we let the government into the banking sector. It should be about making sure that government can do for the populace what it cannot do for itself…period. The banking sector is going to have the reinvigorate itself one way or the other. It will just take longer and be less efficient if Government does it. Just like the Chrysler bailout SEEMED to save the car industry in the short term, but instead allowed manufacturers to continue on the path of self-destruction that has now wiped out GM’s value and seen Chrysler absorbed and sold twice anyway. Government should protect the private citizens who have fought to live honestly in a system that has allowed debt to spiral out of control. Instead McCain and others continue to try to reinflate a housing bubble that will CONTINUE the debt spiral and the bankrupting of the American society which has been going on since the Carter administration and was exasperated by Clinton.

Ideas have consequences. And when we refuse to live by those ideas, we deserve to lose. And if the Republican Party refuses to accept the ideology of Goldwater, Buckley, Reagan, Gingrich and yes, I believe Palin, then yes, the Movement IS more important than the Party. If the party operatives keep throwing up pragmatic, establishment Republicans, and trying to shove the limp-spined Romneys of the world at us as true conservatives, then we need to show Ron Paul how to really do a Third Party, and do what is necessary for the Movement. And doing that in the end is best for the country as well. I don’t, by the way, think this is necessary. But it is time we pushed the current RNC crowd out of the way and brought in people who GET what being a Republican is. You don’t have to agree on all of what Conservatism is. But you can’t openly undercut the movement either.

Why are we settling for dubious character-assassination ads that aren’t playing well or selling well when we can POUND Obama on the one issue he’s polling well on? Am I the only one who thinks showing how far in bed Obama is with Fannae/Freddy or the Sierra Club’s senseless “Don’t drill anywhere” policies is not a winning move?

The only thing he has going for him is his “change agent mantra” and the traditional Dem. advantage on the economy. Hello RNC…this is how you win, you have a line of attack on BOTH of these at once. What are you waiting for? Show them “how” you want to change matters. Show them that when change was needed, BO did NOTHING but play liberal obstructionism. It’s not that hard. It’s a winning play, so why in the heck are you not doing it?

[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080910/aponelpr/paulthirdpartycandidates]

While I understand his frustration that his small ‘l’ libertarian views (many of which I happen to share) were not taken serious by the neo-cons of the National Republican Party leadership. Nor was he truly, IMHO, given a fair hearing to the public outside the blogospher. The solution is not to say “any” third party candidate will do, even Mr Green Ralph Nader.

The simple fact is, this statement undercuts everything his campaign was about. If you want to create a revolution on a set of ideas, it is not sufficient to choose ‘anyone’ to then be a standard bearer. Rather, it is incumbent on Ron Paul and his followers to support the candidate that most closely represents what they think, regardless of how much they siphon off from one candidate or another. I am not foolish enough to think that candidate would be John McCain. Much more likely it would be from the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party (Though Barr as the standard bearer of that party is a joke.)

If he truly wants his ‘ideas’ to be more than slogans and his campaign to be about change rather than outrage, then this is a solution that must be applied consistently. Find the candidate that best represent the viewpoint of the “small l” libertarian wing of the party, and use that to make the point.

Ironically, by doing this, I think he will do ‘less’ damage to the Republican ticket, contrary to what this article assumes. At the end of the day, disaffected Paul supporters are still more likely to come home and vote Republican than vote for Ralph Nader, who stands for everything they oppose.

So the One admits that he was too flippant when he said this decision was “above his pay grade.” And Biden says the classic Catholic Left line that “Personally I believe what the Church says, but I can’t enforce that on others.”

What does it mean when one can be so flippant about life that we cannot consider seriously when it begins? The calls of Palin’s hypocrisy (utterly false) continue. But what is it but hypocrisy when two people do not live what they claim to believe? Obama tels us he is Christian, Christian teaching on life is clear, the only debate Biblically is whether God made your soul from eternity or it is made at birth and always known by Him.

Biden’s position is to try to tell us that one can believe something and not live it. Pure and simple. That is not belief. Belief involves full trust and assurance. Belief that life is from conception means that one must act on it. Assurance that one is living what one claims. And that only comes if publically you do what privately you confess.

Why does this matter? Simple. If I can’t trust you to do what you believe when you ‘confess’ to accept a teaching on this issue, whatever the position one takes on Abortion (and I am 100% pro-life), I cannot trust you to maintain your position in anything else. Issues like this are not things where new data can change our minds. These are eternal principles; balancing life, personal freedom, and economics. Wherever you come out, the principles don’t change. They must be lived to be ideas you believe. Reversing one’s position when new data comes to light is understandable. Changing a worldview is also acceptable. Claiming a worldview and then living outside it is the trademark of the vapid mind and/or the opportunist.

For the one who knows what is right and does not do it, that is sin.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article4677799.ece

I think he’s dead on. This isn’t about the “culture wars.” It’s not about the “Bible Belt” conservatism. Reagan wasn’t one of those either. I’m amused reading the left who insist on inserting things in Palin’s speech she made no reference to.

She never openly mentioned abortion, though her life is the epitome of the pro-life movement. Hypocrisy? Hardly. Pro-life isn’t about perfection, it’s about dealing with the hard things that are thrown at you and not killing your conscience. She didn’t, and she encouraged her daughter (rightly) not to as well. That’s a view lived in, and it speaks more eloquently than a dozen party planks.

What she did say, and what the media didn’t get, and the Left never gets, is how she knows the life of the ordinary American. Being blue collar and unprivileged, I think the left is most mad she “got away from them.” The Feminists don’t understand why she isn’t theirs. After all, here’s a woman who does all they say a woman can do. The epitome of the empowered woman…but she isn’t one of them? Why? Well, they don’t bother to answer that.

Rather, they assume her a simpleton…Quayle all over. 80% approval doesn’t happen for people who don’t understand politics. And you don’t understand politics without some brains. Am I 100% sold she’s the best VP right now in terms of office holding? No. But I’m 100% sold she was the best thing for the ticket.

And if the only good thing that comes out of this election cycle for the right is that John McCain plays Barry Goldwater to Sarah Palin’s Ronald Reagan, I’d say that’s not a bad legacy for him to leave the Conservative movement with.