But what I think is silly (and sorry for the harsh word but the best word I can think of is “silly”) that somehow conservatives will gain benefit or political capital from this episode. For those who think otherwise, can someone please explain to me, How?

And seriously, would his comments have been any less tasteless if they were made against Michelle Obama and her daughters?

Hopefully, I trust the members of this forum would be as outraged if such “jokes” were made about them. Indeed, I do believe that most members of this forum would be outraged if such “jokes” were made about Michelle Obama and his daughters: despite our feelings about Michelle Obama and her husband.

(And trust me, some of the anti-Obama and anti-Michelle postings my wife would see during the campaign on “Southern heritage” conservative listservs she belonged to rivaled Letterman’s “joke” about Sarah Palin. So yes, things like that do happen from our side, too.)

The thing is, us thinking we can gain political capital from this makes even less sense than liberals who think they can gain political capital from going after Rush Limbaugh. Both are entertainers, not politicians: at least Limbaugh is considered a “political” entertainer. We will write front page stories about how silly it is for liberals to burn so many cycles going after Limbaugh but we don’t seem to recognize that it is at least as silly for us to burn so many cycles going after Letterman. Unless David Letterman himself decides to run for political office, most people couldn’t give a rat’s arse about his political leanings. They simply look at this and say that it was a tasteless comment by an entertainer. Meanwhile, Obama and the Democrats (and a few Republicans, too, but that is probably a different subject) go about their merry business destroying America’s constitution, economy and our place in the world. Some of us seem more upset Letterman’s joke than they are about that.

Yes, we need to defend “our own” but on this one, even NOW condemns Letterman’s comments. We can be putting our time and energy into better and more politically profitable endeavors.

So can we just decide to boycott David Letterman and his sponsors and get on with the business of presenting and fighting for a conservative alternative to what’s going on in this country?

And yes, that is the actual title of the article. Here are the first two paragraphs of the article:

The Taliban’s new top operations officer in southern Afghanistan had been a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, the latest example of a freed detainee who took a militant leadership role and a potential complication for the Obama administration’s efforts to close the prison. U.S. authorities handed over the detainee to the Afghan government, which in turn released him, according to Pentagon and CIA officials.

Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, formerly Guantanamo prisoner No. 008, was among 13 Afghan prisoners released to the Afghan government in December 2007. Rasoul is now known as Mullah Abdullah Zakir, a nom de guerre that Pentagon and intelligence officials say is used by a Taliban leader who is in charge of operations against U.S. and Afghan forces in southern Afghanistan.

I know that a diary should have much more than a quote from an article but, really, I just can’t think of anything to add. The Associated Press article says it all. In fact, the title to the Associated Press article says it all.

I honestly cannot think of anything else to add.

Except … Wow!

His advise basically is summed up in three steps he outlines:

1. Advocate first principles with courage, clarity, persistence and cheerfulness.

3. Be prepared to oppose Republicans when they are wrong and side with Democrats when they are right, but always make the decision to support or oppose a matter of first principles and the application of those principles.

In all, I think he is quite correct.

But what I personally find most refreshing is that Gingrich — quite correctly, in my opinion — links the current Obama Administration with the previous Bush Administration.

The Bush-Obama big government, big bureaucracy, politician-empowering, high-tax, high-inflation and high-interest-rate system continues to grow and to place the country in greater and greater danger from inflation, bureaucratic control of the economy, political interference in every aspect of our lives and massive debt.

The first job of the conservative movement is simply to tell the truth about how bad these Bush-Obama proposals are. The 2008 $180 billion stimulus program in the spring failed. The 2008 summer $345 billion housing bailout failed. The 2008 fall $700 billion Wall Street bailout failed. That was the first $1.2 trillion, and it was on former President George W. Bush’s watch, but all three passed with then Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s “yes” vote.

Now President Obama represents continuity rather than change. The new spending bill (as the president called it in his Williamsburg speech last week) is more of the Bush-Obama continuity and represents more of the same instead of “change you can believe in.”

Notice how many times Gingrich writes “Bush-Obama”?

And in all of this, I think Newt Gingrich is absolutely correct: as Michelle Malkin has said, “George W. Bush ‘pre-socialized’ America for Obama.” Furthermore, I think Newt Gingrich is right to emphasize that the fact that George W. Bush was not a conservative. “Compassionate conservatism” is just another name for “big government liberalism” and as we — conservatives as well as all Americans — should have known, “big government liberalism” fails.

And yes, in many ways, George W. Bush was a failure. A liberal and a failure (but I repeat myself). Personally, I do not think conservatism can move on until it admits that. For until conservatives do, the general American population is perfectly justified in thinking that the failures of the supposedly Bush Administration are the failures of conservatism. They are not and we conservatives should and must be bold and honest enough to say so!

Conservatism has not failed. Conservatives have failed because we (with but few exceptions) have allowed ourselves to be identified with and defined by the failed liberal policies of the Republicans!

They both say things so well that I really cannot think of much to add to them. In the interest of fair use, I cannot post them in their entirety but I STRONGLY urge everyone to follow the links and read them for themselves.

But just to wet your appetites, here are excerpts:

From Hot Air:

In 2004, Bush beat John Kerry by winning 62.04 million votes. In 2008, Obama won 62.443 million, a gain of only 400,000. In 2004, Kerry garnered 59.028 million votes; John McCain only got 55.386 million. That means this election saw 3.24 million fewer votes than four years ago. Far from being more energized, the nation appeared to be more apathetic.

Using these numbers, we can see that Barack Obama succeeded in turning out his base much more effectively than McCain did his. How do we know that it’s a base turnout rather than a tsunami of opinion to Democrats? For one thing, Dems didn’t pick up a boatload of new seats in the House, and they may underperform expectations yet in the Senate. They did gain some strength with independents, but only gaining between 11-20 seats in the House tells us that they found votes in districts they already control, more than finding converts.

There’s nothing wrong with that; George Bush won two elections doing the same thing. He only gained 3 million votes over John Kerry’s 2004 performance. It does reflect a certain brittleness about Obama’s support that may not be evident in the flush of his Electoral College victory. That doesn’t mean he can’t broaden his appeal after winning office, but it does mean that he primarily won among friendlies and not through appeals to bipartisanship.

And from the American Issues project:

Washington, DC - The decisive defeat Republicans suffered in Tuesday’s election came because conservative voters decided the party had lost its way, not because the electorate has shifted to the left, according to Issue Autopsy ‘08, a survey of swing state voters in Colorado, Florida, Ohio and Virginia commissioned by the American Issues Project, the group that accounted for the largest outside expenditures made to advocate conservative issues during this election cycle.

“Tuesday’s elections were a shellacking that revealed the Republican brand is diluted to the point where the American people do not really know what the GOP stands for anymore,” said Ed Martin, the organization’s president. “The clear lesson from the American Issues Project survey is that while the United States remains a center-right country, voters no longer trust the Republican Party to represent those interests in Washington.”

The survey found that approximately 72 percent of those voters agreed that: “The Republican Party used to stand for keeping government spending under control, but not anymore.” More than 75 percent of likely voters agreed with the statement: “When the Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994, they promised to reform government and clean up corruption in Washington, but they failed to live up to that promise.”

I, for one, found them both very interesting and informative reads.

We lost when we denounced opposition to the way the GWOT was being conducted as opposition as being unpatriotic. Even with all of his domestic policy heresies, if George Bush had initiated a “surge” strategy in 2005 or even sooner (interestingly enough, like John McCain wanted), I think the Republicans still would have prevailed this year. But instead, we “loyally” followed a failed strategy that allowed the Left to argue that America had lost and could not win.

We lost because nearly everytime our Republican President and our Repubican Congressmen violated a conservative principle — from “No Child Left Behind” to this Administration’s plan for the Federal government to purchase equity positions in (erstwhile) private enterprises — we conservatives were silent. Indeed, we often actively supported them.

Can we blame the American public for not believing conservatism works when for the last eight years, whenever this Administration initiated another big-government liberal — excuse me, “compassionate conservative” but I repeat myself — program doomed to failure, very few if any conservatives stood up to say that Bush’s programs were not conservative and because they were not conservative they were doomed to failure?

Can we truly blame the American public for not being afraid of Obama’s Marxism when for the last eight years we have already begun experiencing the slow drift to socialism under the guise of a “conservative” Administration (and a “conservative” Congress for the first six years of that)?

Even now, I do not think many of us can admit that Bush’s is a failed Presidency and that he was never a conservative.

Let me state explicitly and unequivically what I have hinted at before: John McCain (the “Maverick” that we conservatives love to hate) is and has even been for the last eight years more conservative than President George W. Bush. Quite frankly, we and American as a whole would have been much, much better off if John McCain had been elected President in 2000 and 2004.

Indeed, on many subjects (not all, but many), Bill Clinton was more conservative and a more successful President than George W. Bush!

I could go one but it’s late, I’m tired and I am too depressed but I must ask the basic question to my fellow conservatives on RedState: What happened to our principles?

My fellow conservatives, where is our conscience?

To me, these are not rhetorical questions. Please feel free to use this diary as an open thread to answer them. I really want to know and we, as a movement, really need to know.

Well, she found a perhaps unlikely ally in her quest to convince me to vote this year.

I have a very, very good friend who still lives in Chicago. He is also Black, a staunch liberal Democrat and an ardent Obama supporter. Of course, he knows I am a conservative Republican (and that I do not like or agree with Barack Obama) and we have argued incessantly about politics ever since I “converted” to conservatism almost twenty years ago now. And obviously, we talked about this year’s presidential election.

The funny thing is, when I told him that I was not planning to vote (at least for President) this year, he was shocked and outraged. He argued that it was my duty to vote. But what really made me smile was when he said:

“Our votes may cancel each other out but you have to vote!”

I confess, that did make me smile. He knows that, if I voted, I would be voting exactly the opposite of him and yet he still insists that I must vote.

And for some odd reason, it did make me think of c17wife.

Well, c17wife, whatever else and whatever I ultimately decide to do, know that you have a Black liberal Democrat from Chicago as an ally. I hope neither one of you is too upset about that.

Besides, in fairness to all of them, they have all made very cogent and compelling arguments regarding the current credit crisis and whether or not the Federal government should bailout the market. And I say this even as I strongly disagree with some of the arguments (even some of the arguments of those whose position I ultimately agree with).

Please, how about a REDSTATE ROUNDTABLE on this and soon?

As for the failure of the bailout plan itself, allow me to quote from some of my earlier posts. I am personally ambivalent to say the least. I think the idea of the government essentially purchasing over $700,000,000,000 in private securities and bad debt to be repugnant and a long term debacle. Indeed, let me call it what I really think it is: a significant step towards socialism.

I have consistently argued that the real solution to this problem is to loosen the capital markets by eliminating capital gains taxes; although the injecting $630,000,000,000 in the market is a good step, it also potentially weakens the already (IMHO) too weak dollar. But, unfortunately, my solution was not on the table.

The one very good thing passing the bailout bill would have “reassured” capital markets. Sometimes government “action” has a positive effect, even though the government action itself is not “positive”: the sort of political equivalent of the Hawthorne effect.

So while in the long-term, economically, I think it is a good thing that the bailout plan failed, short-term I think the economy losses.

But politically I must ask this fundamental question: were free-market-based solutions even considered?

This country is becoming socialist but it is not because the Democrats have nominated a Marxist as their Presidential nominee. It is because it seems that neither the present Republican occupant of the White House cannot defend capitalism.

And unfortunately, the Republican Presidential nominee decided to follow the current occupant of the White House down the abyss.

If he acts now, John McCain still has plenty of time to get his economic team together and present his own free market-based solution to the current credit crunch that does not go a great way to socialize our financial markets. The question is, does McCain have the guts, intelligence, imagination and vision to do it?

Maybe that could be the new ad line: “Even the elites now prefer McCain.”

Here is the link.

But seriously, this is good news for McCain. Whatever else, it’s a good counter to the “Republicans for Barack” meme.

Perhaps we can all just agree to disagree on that.

But the thing is, Senator Obama is no more qualified than Palin to be President. Yet no one in the Press is willing to question him on that.

My question to the McCain campaign is, now that the Press has admitted that the issue of “experience” is legitimate, why not press the Press to raise it against Obama. And highlight the fact that the Press hasn’t.

Instead of ads that claim Obama called Palin a pig (which I think is false) or that Obama wants to teach kindergarteners about sex (which is such an exaggeration that it is also false), why not ask the question of why isn’t the Press questioning Obama’s experience?

I have argued that McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin makes it almost impossible for him to raise the “experience” argument against Obama but the obvious bias of the Press does open up the opportunity to either highlight the liberal prejudices of the Media or force them to begin asking the questions of Obama that they should have been asking a year or two ago.

Either way, I think McCain wins.

And by the way, Sarah Palin and the McCain campaign should stop claiming that she initially opposed the “Bridge to Nowhere.” About the only place I see even Republicans supporting her claims is RedState.

But Gov. Palin’s claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere.

“We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge,” Gov. Palin said in August 2006, according to the local newspaper, “and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative.” The bridge would have linked Ketchikan to the airport on Gravina Island. Travelers from Ketchikan (pop. 7,500) now rely on ferries.

Again, this is from the Wall Street Journal, not exactly a member of the Leftist “Mainstream Media” that we all are so rightly up in arms about for being in the tank for Barack Obama.

But what really upsets me is not that Governor Palin said she was against the bridge in her acceptance speech. I still would welcome a fight between Obama and McCain on earmarks — even a debate between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden — but let’s be honest about all of this. What I don’t understand is why she and McCain keep repeating it on the stump and even in their advertisements. Again, that claim is false. Why give the Obama campaign — and the press, but I repeat myself — to call them liars?

On the issue of reform, “change” and even earmarks, the McCain/Palin ticket still wins but sorry but on the “Sarah Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere” debate, they lose.

A good liberal friend and Obama supporter was commenting about how, yes Sarah Palin gave a great speech but that a great speech doesn’t make her qualified for a high office. Of course, I agreed that Sarah Palin must do more than give a great speech in order to answer questions about whether or not she is ready to be the Vice President of the United States. But then I asked, “Shouldn’t Barack Obama need to do more than give a good speech in order to prove he is ready to be the President of the United States?”

The look of stunned silence was priceless.

And yes, I am still waiting for the reply.

In advocating for oil development in ANWR, I have never guaranteed that this new domestic production would immediately reduce the price of oil. However, incremental production from the coastal plain should help reduce price volatility in the U.S. Additionally, ANWR development would send a strong message to oil speculators and producing countries that the United States is serious about addressing its energy problem.

Yet, there is an even more important point. The location and quantity of oil production are changing world geopolitics. Countries that produce significant quantities of oil and natural gas are gaining in power and prestige. Several of these countries have objectives and value systems that are antithetical to U.S. interests. We are becoming increasingly dependent on these insecure sources to our long-term detriment. Further, it has become clear that U.S. petrodollars are financing activities that are harmful to America and to our economic and military interests around the world.

It would be nice if Governor Palin repeats this in her speech tonight. It shows a realistic understanding of the “energy” issues that this country faces and the necessary steps we must take to address them.

I am absolutely serious when I say this. Change the names and many of you are saying the exact same things some of my still liberal friends and family members say in support of “identity politics” and affirmative action and the like.

Seriously.

Then “most of us” thought it would be Mitt Romney and evidently it will (probably) not be him.

And next up was Sarah Palin but, if ABC News can be believed, she is still in Alaska and it (probably) will not be her.

So who will it be?

If nothing else, this is making a lot of people forget that “what’s-his-name” gave a speech last night. Personally, I’m loving every minute of it.

The only thing I ask, Senator McCain, is please don’t disappoint when you finally announce who your Vice Presidential choice is.

I’m for Sarah Palin in 2016 (or possibly even 2012 if McCain fails) but definitely not now.

If we Republicans, if we conservatives, say we disapprove of identity politics and voting for someone because it is “their genders or ethnic group’s time,” then let’s stop suggesting candidates for that reason. Quite frankly, such rhetoric and thinking smacks of nothing more than identity politics and hypocrisy on our side. And personally, I thought as a matter of principle we were against that.

And unless you think I am a chauvinist and/or somehow picking on Sarah Palin, please search for my old comments on JC Watts, a Black conservative I like but who I also do not think would be good for the ticket this year.

Voting for Barack Obama because RedState — yes, RedState! — convinced me that experience does not matter but identity politics does!