As the Nevada GOP Senate primary approaches its unpredictable conclusion, there is a potential disaster brewing for Silver State Republicans come fall. Sue Lowden, once the clear leader in the race has imploded thanks to politically asinine comments about bartering with chickens for health care. Never mind that bartering does continue to take place, when it comes to politics, such an unforced error is devastating. Moreover, Lowden’s questionable partial ownership and nondisclosure of her campaign bus has given her campaign an air of underhandedness. Add to Lowden’s woes her insider’s-insider status as the former Nevada GOP Party Chair and her past support and endorsement for Harry Reid and her veneer of formidability evaporates. As the latest polls indicate, Nevadans are walking away from Sue Lowden in droves, and Fox News reports she’s now third behind Angle and Tarkanian. Despite the backing of heavyweight GOP establishment figures, in the final analysis, Lowden is a falling star.

The bigger problem for Nevada Republicans is the possibility that many are leaving Sue’s campaign for Sharron Angle. Sure, Angle’s conservative, and she’s got the backing of both grassroots groups and political machines like the Tea Party Express, but Angle remains for many a fringe candidate with tenuous ties to Scientology and some questionable votes on spending. Her opponents, most notably Lowden, have pointed out her authorship of a bill which included the hair-brained scheme of providing massages to prison inmates. Can anyone see a Reid campaign commercial there? While Angle’s record does include some bright spots as well, the mere fact that Angle has a record at all is cause for concern in this anti-incumbency year. A four-term record in the Nevada State Assembly is sure to provide ample fodder for Reid and Democratic operatives, and Angle’s fringy style will likely prove an easy target for Reid’s well-oiled machine; a machine that’s managed to keep the sullen, liberal Majority Leader – by any measure an unappealing candidate – in office for more than 20 years. As the final vote draws near it’s clear that going with Angle is huge gamble.

The sleeper candidate in the race remains Danny Tarkanian. While Tarkanian hasn’t exactly caught fire, his quiet, consistent message and famous Nevada name have kept him in the running and amidst the unpredictability of Lowden and the quirkiness of Angle, Tarkanian looks more and more like the safe conservative choice. Tarkanian is just as conservative as Angle, he’s pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, opposed the Wall Street bailouts and focused on bringing the federal government to heel. He’s endorsed by Chuck Heath – Sarah Palin’s father and the grassroots Minuteman Project – but as an attorney and small businessman who’s never held public office before, Tarkanian comes without the baggage of a legislative record. He’s the outsider in an outsider’s year – something he grasped early as the first candidate to jump in against Reid last August when the Democrats were riding high. Going with Tarkanian has its disadvantages – Danny’s run for statewide office before, unsuccessfully – but on the other hand in doing so he’s boosted his statewide name recognition to a degree that Angle never has; most Nevada Republicans have a memory of casting their ballot for Danny Tarkanian. It helps also that every living room in the state has fond memories of watching his father, the legendary UNLV basketball coach, take the NCAA title.

Can Danny Tarkanian beat Harry Reid? If polls are any indication, yes. Tarkanian’s campaign boasts an impressive list of some 16 polls in which Tarkanian beats Reid – every poll, save one, since August 2009. While most Republicans are confident that a ham sandwich could beat Harry Reid in November, their overconfidence is just that – overconfident. Reid’s machine should not be underestimated – nor the millions upon millions of dollars in negative advertising and get out the vote efforts that will pour into Nevada to prop up the ailing Majority Leader. Reid will not go quietly, and while Angle’s upstart campaign seems to have the energy now to take on Reid, like Kentucky’s Rand Paul, personality along with her record, will likely prove far too easy to marginalize come June 9th; in the words of one respected Republican strategist, “Harry Reid will eat Sharron Angle for breakfast.”

Tarkanian may not be a dream candidate, but his quiet demeanor, constitutional focus, and stubborn determination are a good match for Reid’s own workmanlike approach to politics and the anti-government mood of the electorate. Over the course of nine months, Tarkanian has proven to be the only reliable candidate in Nevada’s GOP field, and he’s done so without the big dollars or the machine backing that has propelled his rivals. Ultimately Tarkanian is the safest option and the best candidate to take on Harry Reid this November, and should be the choice of Nevada Republicans.

Abraham Lincoln once warned his fellow Americans that, “as a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.” It is an axiom that still holds true. So it is on the eve of a great election that will have profound consequences for our national character that we implore our fellow citizens to remember the brave men and women who have gone before you, who have built this country from a frontier nation of 13 colonies to the great republic you see before you. We implore you to remember the vision of our founding fathers, to build a new society of strictly limited government but nearly unlimited freedom; a nation that prized natural and individual liberty over artificial, collective equality; a nation whose mission has been to foster life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

To our fellow conservatives, we entreat you in these final hours to fight as hard as you have ever fought, to mobilize and focus all your efforts toward victory, while ignoring those who would cause you to lose faith. We remind you of the stirring words of President Reagan, who believed that the success of our America – an America of limited government, personal freedom and responsibility, and one rooted firmly in the fertile soil of our God-fearing, visionary forefathers was inextricably linked to the future of all humanity: “You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.” Remember the charge of our greatest leader, the father of our nation, George Washington: “It should be the highest ambition of every American to extend his views beyond himself, and to bear in mind that his conduct will not only affect himself, his country, and his immediate posterity; but that its influence may be co-extensive with the world, and stamp political happiness or misery on ages yet unborn.”

To John McCain, a man of inestimable integrity and uncommon valor, we thank you for tireless service to this nation. You are unquestionably the better man, the greater patriot and the right leader for America at this trying moment. With you we cast our highest hopes and offer you this parting interpretation on words that have often brought encourgement to our nation :

 Sail on, Oh man of State!

Sail on, Oh warrior strong and great.

America with all Her fears

With all the hope of future years

Is hanging breathless on thy fate.

Finally, we offer our prayers to the Almighty, that He will guide our nation in this moment of historic significance. As a nation we have not always lived up to our highest ideals, but we remain a good and free people, and from our shores the light of liberty still beams out across a weary and dangerous world. May God continue to bless America and light our path forward.

A Christian, an Islamofascist, and a Hare Krishna all wanted to go bowling. The Islamofascist turned to the Hare Krishna and says, “Let’s cut off the infidel’s head and use it for a ball.” The horrified Hare Krishna says, “But that would violate all my beliefs!” So the Islamofascist turns to the Christian and says, “Let’s cut off the infidel’s head and use it for a ball.” The Christian says “You just wanted to cut off MY head!” The Islamofascist says “Yeah, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Besides, his head is already shaved!”

Okay, so it’s more gruesome than funny. But it says that Islamofascists will use any alliances possible to achieve their goals. There are many fine people in the world, across all religions, cultures, and nations. There are relatively few bad ones, but a few bad apples can spoil the whole barrel.

The threat posed by Islamofascists, led by such luminaries as Osama Bin Laden, and their ultimate goal, is to destroy everything opposed to their philosophy, which is derived from their particular reading of the Koran. Such goals are diametrically opposed to all other organizing principles, including capitalism, socialism, democracy, social-democracy…any –ism, -ist or –cy you can think of. We may not all agree on the best organizing principle, but we tend to want to influence and negotiate rather than completely destroy.

Islamofascism is the forgotten man in the recent struggles with the financial crisis, which has apparently spread throughout all countries whose financial companies bought lousy U.S., Congressman Barney Frank-inspired paper and its derivatives. You can bet the farm, equity-lossed though it may be, that Bin Laden and his henchman are looking for ways to take advantage of it. A separate bet can be made that they will find it. Hey, isn’t a separate bet what a “hedge fund” is?

Barack Obama, whose first name means The Messiah Whose Middle Name Is Unspeakable, probably means to “negotiate” Bin Laden out of the hills. He must think this is the modern-day version of the Hatfield’s and the McCoy’s. The result will likely more closely resemble the Munich meeting between Neville Chamberlain and Adolph Hitler.

As I understand, diplomacy isn’t too different from making a really big business deal. You want something, so in consideration, you offer the other guy something he wants in return. Supposedly, Lyndon Johnson was said to have remarked that he could end this Vietnam thing if he could just sit down with Ho Chi Minh and make a deal! Johnson’s conduct of that war indicated he didn’t understand someone committed to an idea, odd for the Lord of the Senate and the consummate politician.

If anyone understands an ideologue, it is surely the Senator from Illinois, socialist sympathizer and healer. But in the face of a man who will cut another man’s head off over a difference of opinion, what is likely is that Obama will give away the store, the sign, and free advertising to the illusive Sheik and receive “peace” in return. He will return to a fanfare of triumph from an obsequious press, beaming “Peace in our time”. Extortion payments will be periodically expected, and violence will resume when the payments are not on time. Can anyone say “West Bank” or Lebanon”?

What might the mighty Sheik demand other than cash (in Euros, please, or maybe Chinese Yin by that time)? Some kind of concessions. A free hand to scrape Israel off the only miserable piece of sand they have on the whole planet?  Let’s table that, at least for now. A don’t ask, don’t tell policy regarding the acquisition of nuclear technology? Iran just won’t share…well, they’re Shia, ya see, and we just don’t…anyway, what else ya got? How about those cute little tykes you brought with you singing that “Hope” song? They would make wonderful additions to our family here. Well, do you really have something to offer or is this another infidel trick?

They likely want the permanent partition of Jerusalem, for starters. Neither the establishment of Madrassas in the U.S. nor those ridiculous “hate speech” courts like in Canada would be a surprising request. Obama would think those are great ideas, but it would take a concentrated marketing effort of rhetorical misdirection to set them up in a short time…and he would get people on it quicker than a Bedouin can saddle a camel.

Demanding removal of all American presence from the soil where Mecca is situated is a given; that’s Bin Laden’s beef with his native country. So, maybe there is something to this “alternative fuels” push. The guys who can’t make enough gasoline while sitting atop an ocean of oil don’t inspire confidence in their production efficiency. If we leave from the whole area, bye-bye Mideast oil, hello, Canada and Russia. What do you mean, you’ll have to up the price? What does supply and demand have to do with anything? I thought we were friends?

If the Islamofascists have free reign, Saudi Arabia will turn into a domino set on a slant. The House of Saud is “sympathetic” (read: open to bribery) to U.S. interests, but plenty of that country’s citizens are sympathetic to Bin Laden, and don’t even need a bribe. They might even take the money and cut your head off for insulting their honor over the offer of one. Doesn’t Bin Laden see the House of Saud as corrupt? He’s right, of course, but that hasn’t stopped us from continuing to do business with them.

Obama would be amenable to removing all U.S. presence, and could do so with military personnel as soon as they could board the ships (just leave the other stuff…that’s right, we’ll take the tanks and aircraft). Removing civilians the locals might want there to keep up oil production, provide oil well services, and so forth…that might be another matter. It would be problematic under democracy, but we seem to be heading away from democracy. Under a socialist Obama regime, assuming Arabians would want civilians and all removed, it would be less problematic; have the military put American civilians under arrest and put them aboard the ships. That is what socialist states do.

No? If the Commander is Chief orders the Joint Chiefs, it will be done. Resistance is futile. The White House Chef might as well refuse to make POTUS a sandwich if he asks for one.

What else would Bin Laden want? Departure from Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and anywhere else us infidels might be defaming Muslim soil. Normally, all this would be subject to nuance, but these are no longer normal times. If the U.S. Treasury can’t back the dough we’re printing, bases and troop presence everywhere will likely reviewed for need, meaning maintaining security. But, Obama will bring the world together, right? What is there to fear in a peaceful world? Security for everyone is the overarching promise, right?

Hmmm…tell you what…let’s just sacrifice the bald guy and call it day.

Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson accepts his winnings

As everyone knows the Wall Street crash of 1929 ushered in a period of profound and unprecedented hardship for the American people. Then President of the United States, Hoover was castigated as a do-nothing president, a failed leader, a man who allowed his nation to wither for the sake of laissez-faire purity and a lack of compassion. Unemployment soared, commerce ground to a halt, and thousands of Americans found themselves waiting in soup lines and living in shantytowns known as “Hoovervilles.”

Thus, the remedy was Franklin D. Roosevelt, who ushered into being a new era of massive government spending that forever and fundamentally altered the nature of American government. Roosevelt found work for people through public spending on public works projects and a host of financial reforms that gave rise to the modern welfare state. Roosevelt is beloved by many for being the man who saved the day, but some have argued that the true engine of prosperity that pushed America out of economic hardship was World War II, and that for all his good intentions, Roosevelt may have actually prolonged the Depression. In any event, he left us with a nanny state mindset accompanied by an unwieldy and monstrous federal apparatus that has grown like a hydra and threatens in time to devour America’s prosperity. As it turns out Hoover wasn’t all bad, and Roosevelt wasn’t all good.

For nearly the last century, the bedrock of American conservatism has been the notion of containing the size and scope of the federal government, and fostering a society of individual responsibility – rolling back the worst provisions and precepts of the New Deal. Now, on the eve of a federal intervention into the American economy of massive scale, there is a deafening silence from the Right, and a sinking feeling that we have reached another New Deal moment that will have profound consequences for America’s future.

To be certain, the issues involved in this current intervention are very complex, and their complexity leaves many (perhaps most) Americans without a clear understanding of what is happening, and what is at stake. At the root of the problem of course are the so-called subprime lenders. Essentially lending institutions that gives loans to individuals who are adjudged a higher risk. In other words, these are people with bad credit, questionable incomes, etc.  The name “subprime” has nothing to do with interest rates, but rather the quality of the loan/borrower – like with meat, there’s prime rib…and not. These are risky loans given to high-risk borrowers, with a higher default expectation rate, and as such they come with higher interest rates. So, why would anyone lend to these people? The simple truth is greed…greed made easy by government meddling.  A soaring housing market, low interest rates, and mortgages backed by Fannie & Freddie all contributed to a go-go lending atmosphere in which everyone was making money, and no one was asking questions. And why would they? Lenders simply made loans to risky borrowers then packaged and sold that debt to other institutions including, most notably, government-chartered mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which gobbled-up these mortgage-backed securities and fed a false perception of government guarantees and low risk. Eventually, the party ended.  As the housing supply exceed the demand, interest rates began to rise and payments on variable interest rate mortgages began to dramatically increase, these risky borrowers began to default and the declining value of their real estate made it impossible to refinance.  Lenders were left holding the bag – billions of dollars in illiquid securities that created a credit crunch and practically frozen capital markets. 

So, who’s to blame? In short: borrowers, mortgage underwriters and lending institutions, ratings companies, and of course, Congress.  Continuing the trend of government interference into the marketplace and the ever-popular attempt by those on the Left to socially engineer a better world, Congress chartered the establishment of mortgage guarantors Fannie & Freddie – the so-called GSEs or Government Sponsored Enterprises. Their aim of course was to encourage lending and make the dream of home ownership possible for more people, but in reality, these GSEs were encouraged by Congress to lend to high-risk individuals who couldn’t find a lender under normal creditworthiness guidelines. In short, Congress attempted to elevate whole classes of people into homeownership who couldn’t afford it.

The problems with this were apparent however to anyone who cared to look. As early as 2005, then Fed Chief Alan Greenspan warned the Senate Housing, Banking and Urban Affairs Committee, “Without restrictions on the size of GSE balance sheets, we put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership.” Greenspan went on to explain, “Without changes in legislation, Fannie and Freddie will, at some point, again feel free to multiply profitability through the issuance of subsidized debt…The strong belief of investors in the implicit government backing of the GSEs does not by itself create safety and soundness problems for the GSEs, but it does create systemic risks for the U.S. financial system as the GSEs become very large.”  In May of 2006, U.S. Senator John McCain warned about the crisis from the well of the Senate and urged Congress to act, “For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.”

Neither Greenspan nor McCain’s warnings were heeded, and GOP-backed legislation that would have helped regulate these out of control mortgage giants were blocked by Democratic lawmakers including Senators Chris Dodd and Representative Barney Frank who foresaw no problems and encouraged the lending practices to continue unabated. Indeed Frank now famouly denied that there were any signs of problems with Fannie and Freddie. This of course brings us back to the proposed current remedy for this crisis, a remedy being engineered in part by Messrs. Dodd and Frank. (Dodd meanwhile has been under close scrutiny for receiving a sweetheart mortgage deal from Countrywide Financial – one of the lending institutions who sold the most securities to Fannie & Freddie.)

The options presented to us by the Olympians on the Hill, at Teasury and the Fed is essentially this: give us seven hundred billion or else the economy will collapse.

That’s right. Having encouraged lenders to make lousy loans to high-risk borrowers in an misguided attempt at social justice, Congress wants to appropriate more money from taxpayers to give to companies so they can offload the mortgage-backed securities that are causing their implosion. They’ve used the power of the federal government to encourage poor lending practices, allowing Wall Street to reap huge profits while the market was booming, only to have to admit that their scheme failed when the market went bust and forcing U.S. taxpayers to bail everybody out. It is worse than merely privatizing gains and socializing losses – it is a degree of incompetent central economic planning not seen since the Hammer and Sickle flew over the Kremlin.

Congress of course promises that these securities are not valueless, that they are backed by valuable real estate assets, and that in the fullness of time, taxpayers will recoup their investment, perhaps even turn a profit. Forgive us if we seem skeptical. We’re certain if there was money to be made, a private-sector solution would be found.  Yet, there is no discussion of forcing (since we’re into that now) a private sector solution, at least in part. Congress could do more than simply write a check. SEC accounting rules could be changed immediately to help revalue some of these assets. Congress could temporarily mandate the cancellation of dividends to help improve the financial soundness of these institutions without generating the fear that normal dividend cancellations would engender, it could order these institutions to issue new preferred stock which would immediately increase their capitalization, etc. But for obvious reasons (greed) no one in these institutions wants to dilute their existing shares, to take dividend decreases, or to lose managerial control by partnering with a deposit bank that could provide the capitalization and liquidity they need (as Merrill Lynch did). It’s easier to dump the illiquid assets on the taxpayer and let the party continue.

So, it’s to be a multibillion-dollar bailout that will be something on the order of double the cost of the Iraq war – a war long held by Democrats to be ruinous in cost. Keep in mind that there’s been no discussion of the constitutionality of any of these actions; the Constitution now viewed by so many as merely quaint and irrelevant. In a month where the Federal Government of the United States has become the major player in the insurance business, and become the world’s largest mortgage lender, what’s to stop it from bailing out the investment banks? And that’s the whole point isn’t it? Where does this merry-go-round stop? What happens when the airlines fail? What happens when GM or Ford go belly-up? What happens if the credit card companies – now saddled with America’s largest ever debt ratio fail? Is the federal government going to enter these industries as well? Are we to bail out every failing industry, lender or borrower, socializing every loss, and paying it all with printed paper money backed by nothing but illusory guarantees with liquidity provided to us by foreign lenders like China?  Of course, if one looks at the government’s own balance sheets the figure of seven hundred billion pales in comparison to the massive debt load that looms over the nation. A national debt of almost $10 trillion and rising fast thanks to what will necessarily be a debt ceiling increase included in this bailout, and then the really big money – massive unfunded mandates such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid totaling an utterly unfathomable $53 trillion.  All the product of further government attempts to create a better world…all stemming from the ruinous expansion of the federal government under the New Deal, and gross mismanagement and dereliction of duty on the part of the U.S. Congress who refuses to regulate, to dramatically cut spending, or to be honest with the American people about the true magnitude of this house of cards.

It’s New New Deal Time! Money all around! To add to the insanity of course, America can’t seem to make up its mind between two candidates – one who wants to cut spending and lower taxes (McCain), and one who promises higher taxes and MORE spending (Obama). Of course, Obama doesn’t promise that, he claims he can deliver a tax cut to 95% of Americans…even though 40% of Americans don’t pay taxes at all.  But, who cares where the money comes from as long as it’s flowing, right?  Free money!

That this election should even be close in light of the current crisis defies belief.

Of course now that we have an economic gun to our head, loaded with bullets provided by Congress, we seem to have little choice but to open our collective wallets and hope for the best.  The unpopular Bush doesn’t wish to add the title of the “Second Herbert Hoover” to his resume, those running for the presidency don’t want to be seen as lacking in leadership, Congress has been bitten by its usual “do something” bug, and those voices on the Right who harbor genuine concern about where this is heading remain silent, lest they be adjudged responsible for the crash that would follow.

The truth of the matter is, this bailout sets a terrible precedent, and rather than exposing the ghastly arithmetic that undergirds our economy, it will likely prove to be a mere band-aid that will fail to address the underlying fundamental (and necessarily painful) reform that is urgently needed as well as the natural market correction that should be allowed to happen. Instead we will allow the problem to fester, likely giving rise to additional unintended consequences, pushing an ever greater burden and an ever more calamitous collapse upon the heads of Americans yet to be born.

Obama’s “citizen of the world” speech in front of an adoring crowd of German leftists is likely to go over with many American voters like a lead Zeppelin. Indeed, the audacity of his presidential-style trip is nothing short of galling, and it is sure to backfire with many who see a glaring incongruence between Obama’s accomplishments and his magisterial pretensions.

Europeans of course are delighted by their chance to hopefully influence an American election. The chance to be relevant in the impenetrable mind of the American voter is exciting enough, but helping to nudge what would be America’s first leftist president into office is so alluring as to drive 200,000 Germans into the streets to see a standard Obama stump speech, laden with pilfered lines from Kennedy and Reagan with a hint of Lincoln, and peppered with self-evident untruths such as, “I speak to you not as a candidate for president…”

American Jason Farago writes in the UK’s leftist newspaper, The Guardian, “Four years ago John Kerry’s halfhearted call for an America “respected in the world” fell flat with voters who thought it was better to be feared than loved. But for a nation eager to regain its standing, a bit of American idolatry across the pond might be no bad thing.” What many Europeans, and nearly the whole of the elitist, socialist, press corps (both in Europe and America) fails to grasp, is that America remains a center-right nation: we don’t agree with Europe’s vision of a politically correct, state-dominated, enviro-hysterical, wealth-redistributing, pacifistic, equality-uber-alles society. We prize liberty over equality, we prize action over incessant fruitless diplomacy, we value small government over large, and we prize core values over international geniality. We cling to our guns and (Christian) God too, which makes us pariahs in a secular humanist Europe more at ease with accommodating Islamic-separatism under the guise of multiculturalism than defending its own native heritage and institutions.

Farago muses: “We know that these past years have been bad if not disastrous – an astonishing 78% of us think something’s out of joint – but the American abroad must confront the cataclysm of the Bush era on a near-daily basis…” Disastrous? That 50 million people living under the worst forms of dictatorship should have been set on the path to freedom and consensual self-government? That the Arab world should have its first chance at democracy, after thousands of years of tribalism and dictatorship (and European imperialism)? Bush’s ineloquence is tough to bear, but is it cataclysmic? Is his desire for action rather than duplicitous diplomacy so fundamentally abhorrent? What kind of American leader would people like Farago and our European friends prefer? One who engages in meaningless diplomacy ad infinitum, (as only Europeans can), while the world’s anti-democratic forces gather strength and arms? One who rails against tyranny but lifts not a finger to stop it, like Germany? One who adopts and preaches about lofty environmental goals with no intention of keeping his commitments, like the EU’s leaders? Talk is cheap…which is why European opinion is so little valued in the Bush Administration and throughout America, and why so many Americans will look upon Obama’s trip and his embrace by Europe with due skepticism.

Why do 78% of us think something’s out of joint? Note to Europe: it isn’t our sense of a lack of popularity at the morally bankrupt United Nations. It’s primarily a slowing economy, marked by high gas prices, coupled with war fatigue.  To put it in a European context, if Winston Churchill can be summarily tossed from office after winning WWII, is it surprising that George W. Bush and his potential GOP successor should not meet with similar domestic challenges as the Iraq war nears a potential end?

As for why America and Bush remain unpopular in Europe, and why Obama should conversely be so praised, it is only natural. It is because the European state-run press is comprised nearly entirely of leftists who preach to an audience weaned on secular Marxist theories, laden with a compelling sense of geopolitical impotence seasoned with rank jealousy and a haughty sense of unfounded cultural superiority. How can Europe, they wonder, continue to take a back seat to those dumb, fat, God-loving, gun-toting, burger-eating, American blowhards that can only muster a merci bocu while dumping their tourists dollars in Europe? So long as America remains strong, independent and essentially conservative, the Left will continue to hate her, and so will leftist Europe. An American president popular in Europe? We should hate to see it. An American presidential candidate so warmly embraced? We should know to fear it.

Like Davey Crocket and company at the Alamo, there are a number of steadfast conservatives who are holding out against John McCain, even in the face of what amounts to unvarnished socialism in the person of Barack Obama. Most of these individuals are committed, principled, conservatives, which means their allegiance to the Republican Party depends on the frequency and degree with which the Republican Party faithfully, fully, resolutely and competently fosters conservative ideals of governance.

 Quite simply, John McCain isn’t their man. Far more the maverick, compromising, bipartisan, sometimes-conservative, McCain has repeatedly raised the ire of conservatives not for his lack of principle, but for positions that stand in opposition to their principles. It is an honest, straightforward disagreement about policy and governance, the true nature of conservatism, and what is best for America.

There can be no doubt that these conservatives love their country, perhaps more than many. Oddly enough however, some of these conservatives have adopted a scorched-America, Phoenix policy. That is to say, they would rather sit home on Election Day, write in a non-competitive candidate, or even vote for Barack Obama, over John McCain. Their strategy, or so they hope, is to so damage America through four years of unchecked liberalism under an Obama Administration and Democratic congress, that like the mythical Phoenix, true conservatism will spring from the ashes such as in 1980.

 It’s not an incoherent position, but it’s not a wise one either.

First off, there are a number of logical inconsistencies with this concept, and one large assumption. The first is the notion that an Obama presidency will necessarily be a disaster. What if its not?  What if, like Bill Clinton’s presidency, Obama’s first two shaky years in office are met with a GOP midterm victory, that returns divided government to America, force Obama to the center, and results in Barack Obama being reelected in 2012? What if America, swollen by legions of poor immigrants from socialist countries becomes even more comfortable with big government? Obama’s popular vice president may take the reigns after him. Twelve years of liberal governance? Sixteen? More?

Moreover, a 2012 duplication of Reagan’s 1980 strategy is of course missing its central element – Reagan.  What illuminating, positive, articulate, appealing, intelligent, principled, electable conservative is currently out there in the field that could fill such shoes in 2012? Quite simply there isn’t one.  Reagan didn’t appear on the scene overnight. He was a voice for conservatism for years before his election in 1980. Reagan developed his philosophy, built his foundation of support, and honed his leadership skills. Reagan was the obvious choice for conservatism in 1980, but if our latest primary was the equivalent to reviewing the conservative litter, and John McCain still triumphed, it strongly suggests that no Reaganesque conservative has yet emerged. It is utter nonsense to employ a conservative great man strategy when no such conservative great men are evidently available.

Assuming however, for the sake of argument, that voting for John McCain would be a disaster for conservatives, and his presidency a failure for conservatism, then how would voting for Obama or not voting at all be helpful? If disaster is inevitable either way, one can employ the Phoenix strategy while still voting for McCain. You will have your GOP meltdown either way, and will have the comfort of knowing that you didn’t aid Obama and his leftists.

Lastly, there is the principle of America’s best interest. It’s a curious position to love one’s country so much, yet be willing to do what is not in the Nation’s best interest, (even in the short term) for the sake of political calculation. It is a curious position to place the virtue of one’s personal voting history over the virtue of always doing what is best for America, and all true, honest, conservatives must recognize that employing this strategy – helping Obama – is in fact willingly doing what they know to be bad for America over the next four years.

Some will argue that it is “tough love,” or that they are taking a longer view of the future – doing what is wrong now, in hopes of bringing about a brighter future. Naturally of course, the idea of trying to predict, much less influence politics four or eight years distant is utter folly. We live in an ever-changing, rapidly developing, world. Who on September 10, 2001, could have predicted how different America would look on September 11, 2001? There is no one alive who can have a clear concept of how America will look in 2012, and to suggest that America’s future is so important that she can go without proper leadership for four years or more in the hopes of one day returning true conservative leadership is mystifying.

Conservatives love their country, and all true conservatives should make a commitment to doing what is right for America at every instance. Each vote is a choice made in time: a selection between two imperfect options for America’s immediate future. A vote is not a scheme for future political advantage, but a decision about who, given the options before us, here and now, is best equipped to handle the many challenges, hurdles and unforeseen obstacles that America will surely face over the next four years. For the true conservative, such reflection can only lead to one conclusion. At this moment, in this election, for America’s sake, the conservative choice is John McCain.

Okay, “like” may be too strong a word, but in the hollow socialist panderfest that is the Democrat primary, I can’t help but pull for Hillary. Not that I would ever vote for either of them, that would be like chosing between the pit and the pendulum, but its all a bit like Stalingrad…you absolutley hated them both, but you still routed for the Russians.  It’s easy to pull for her really, she’s behind in the polls (perhaps insurmountably), she’s been given a raw deal by her former allies in the Trotskyite press, and of course there’s all those schadenfreudistic impulses like watching Bill Clinton systematically dismember the last vestiges of his political legacy, watching the bloodbath caused by the autocannibalistic Hydra that is the intra-party interest group battle, or watching the Democrats throwing away boatloads of valuable campaign cash on their ludicrous and comically protracted proportional representation primary.

But on the other hand, despite her crocodile tears and her increasingly frayed appearance, Hillary Clinton has managed to hang in there tenaciously, and relatively speaking, seems to be the one imbued with a modicum of gravitas, geostrategic realism, and policy sense. Which isn’t to say that she isn’t an endlessly calculating leftist panderer, she is, but next to Obama she seems like the stronger option, and each day when I turn on my TV and see him fixing to play paddy-cake with Ahmadinejad while she’s shouting “this may go into overtime” from atop a stack of Maker’s Mark barrels, my gut says she’d be a better commander-in-chief. Point is, I find myself in Hillary’s corner, and I hate it here.

It’s not as though I needed any help disliking Obama, he’s like a Frankenstein of all the lefties I can’t stand, I mean he’s Barbara Boxer on domestic issues and Jimmy Carter on foreign affairs for crying out loud. To make matters worse he’s nearly as smooth as Bill Clinton, and he’s got JFK’s fawning, supine fan-base to boot. He’s the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, has a preacher stricken with ecclesiastical Tourettes, a political steering committee headed by tie-dyed terrorists, a prospective first lady that’s the political equivalent to Nurse Ratched, and a tax policy invented by Robin Hood…oh, and he’s endorsed by Hamas too.  Now that the iron man primary is nearly over and the politburo is ready to put the stamp on Obama, the real circus begins. Forget about all that stuff he said about America, guns, God, fear, bitterness, etc., it’s time for the general election…so slap on the flag pin, print up the faith-based bifolds, and roll out mom and the kids. Let me know when we actually see him eating apple pie.

No thanks. At least I know Hillary Clinton, indeed I’ve always enjoyed disliking her, and when compared to the nouveau-internationalistic-egalitarian-trans-utopian-social-metamorphistic-whatever-you-call-it drivel that drives Obama’s latte-drinking drones crazy, I’ll take good old Mrs.Clinton’s Machiavellian scheming any day, and chalk it up to one more reason I dislike Barack Obama.

Prince Charming is starting to gain some wrinkles … and grey hairs. Last week Fox News and the Drudgereport broke the “news” that Barak Obama’s pastor of twenty years has, since at least 2001, filled his sermons with hate filled rhetoric – helping to drive a wedge between the black comunity and every other community in Chicago and indeed America. That is, the leading Democratic candidate, who has based his campaign on a platform of unity and change has been preached to for twenty years by an overtly bigoted man who is working to maintain the racist status quo. To imagine that Barak Obama and his wife could be unaware of pastor Wright’s preachings or otherwise unaffected by it stinks of incredulity and phoniness. 

The distinction has been drawn by many in the mainstream media, that we cannot automaticaly impute pastor Wright’s beliefs to Mr. Obama.  Yet, we cannot ignore that casting aside the fiery rehetoric of his pastor and close confidant of twenty years speaks to Barak Obama’s insincerity and ambition. Specifically, Barak Obama has built a crazed following on a platform of unity, change and a being different from ordinary polictcs (traits all Presidential candidates speak to). Despite all this, however, and despite his fancy campaign slogans and excited college followers, Barak Obama has shown that he will act as any other politician would: He will manipulate and exploit for gain. Mr. Obama expolited the church’s connection with the black community when joined more than twenty years ago. Now, when his relationship with that same church is called into question, Mr. Obama abandons the church and pastor of twenty years, abandons the black community of Chicago for the hills of white America with claims of “I did not sit in the pew when that man was preaching”. Obama’s explanation does not pass the smell test for a sincerely response to the claims; such a hollow statement smells like a page from slick Willy’s book “I did not have sexual relations with that woman …”

Ultimately, this is a question of judgment. First, Mr. Obama’s decision to even join the Trinity church and be an outstanding member who donated tens of thousands of dollars to the church which openly supports the anti-semite Louis Farrakhan must be called into question. Secondly, if attends a church for twenty years – how ignorant can he be to not be aware of its mission and the oratory damntaion cast by its leading paster – also his friend and confidant. Furthermore, everyone must question the judgment and loyalty of a man that would so easily turn on his community and his church of twenty years, when the grey clouds start to gather.

Later today, Mr. Obama will attempt to explain his association with Trinity church and pastor Wright by couching the criticism in terms of racism. Mr. Obama will do something he has not done in pretty much the entire campaign – he will focus on the race issue, attempting to again, exploit the black connection. The damage is done, however, Mr. Obama, your campaign should just move on.

The black community should be offended that Barak so quickly abandoned his community for the simple reason Fox News has chased this story.

 Update

“I was not in the pews, with that man, Reverend White”

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. Obama speech 3/19/2008

“indeed I was”

With the departure of Mitt Romney, all conservative hopes for retaining the White House have diminished. The 2008 Republican presidential nominee will be Senator John McCain.

Under the best of circumstances, retaining the White House following a  two term presidency is difficult – in recent decades only Ronald Reagan was able to achieve this feat with the election of his sitting vice president, George H.W. Bush. This year, it is particularly difficult. No president in recent memory has been as despised by the left as George W. Bush. Between an expensive and unpopular war, worries over a souring economy, etc., Bush is anathema to the left and unpopular among independents. Their frustration over his policies and the sheer indignity they feel at having what they believe to be an ignorant and unworthy man who beat Al Gore and John Kerry leading our Nation is palpable.

Given these factors, it is hard to see how any Republican could be elected, but to make matters worse, the GOP is about to nominate the one Republican that will do more to dissuade the enthusiasm, and financial support of his own party’s base than any other.

McCain would be the oldest man ever elected as a first term president, and his stances on important issues combined with what many conservatives feel is the relish with which he opposes them on those issues, has made for bitter feelings. Moreover, despite his soft-spoken demeanor at victory rallies, McCain is not known for his magnanimity, and most conservatives are not optimistic that McCain will reach out to them with anything approaching the same spirit shown to those across the aisle. Indeed, McCain’s initial admonishment to his conservatives critics to “calm down” has done little to assuage that pessimism.

But it’s not all bad. After all McCain is the one man that can reach out to independents and Democrats, right? Maybe not. 

It seems hard to imagine how McCain can win in November with just moderate and liberal Republicans, independents, and Joe Lieberman. This is still about red state/blue state, and if you can’t win all of Bush’s states, you’re not going to win in the fall. If McCain cannot find a way to not only heal the rift with this base, but indeed to motivate them to work for him, the entire efforts seems folly.

Moreover, too few Democrats and independents are likely to cast their lot with McCain given what are the two critical issues in this election thus far: the war and the economy.  On the first score, McCain is committed to the unpopular war, already being labeled as a “war monger” by Hillary Clinton, and foolishly providing Democrats with bumper-sticker ammunition – “McCain: 100 more years of war!”

On the later score, McCain has already and exceedingly foolishly conceded that he knows little about the economy – touting his reading of Alan Greenspan’s book, his pork-cutting habits, and support from Jack Kemp as qualifications for leading the world’s largest economy into the next growth cycle.

Add to this dismal recipe the determination of liberals of all stripes to take back the White House, the explosive enthusiasm for Barack Obama, and the historic novelty of electing either him or the Nation’s first female president, and a McCain victory is hard to envisage.

There are plenty of reasons for conservatives to support McCain, but by and large, they are attempts to mitigate the damage that will be done to the country by the leftists. McCain himself has yet to give conservatives a positive and constructive reason to vote for him, or a true vision of how a McCain presidency will help them to achieve their goals and aspirations, while advancing the central core of Reagan conservatism. We wait to hear from Senator McCain.

While some conservatives are ready to head for the hills, others know that we retreat at our own peril, and that of the Nation. The specter of Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama, leading our retreat in the War on Terror, stacking the Court, raising our taxes, instituting massive new entitlement spending and socialized medicine, etc., simply will do too much damage to our Nation to ignore.

In the end, many conservatives will vote for McCain, some won’t, but absent the kind of national security crisis that no true American would wish to see, anything short of a Herculean effort by a united GOP is likely to result in failure.

There is much debate about which candidate would be “easier” to run against in the fall – Clinton or Obama. There is little difference between them in terms of policy, but tactically speaking, there are some definite advantages to a Clinton run. An Obama candidacy, though devoid of substance, is likely to be unbeatable given the tearful, near hysterical enthusiasm being shown by his supporters as well as the titanic volumes of cash contributions he is generating. Obama’s weaknesses are his inexperience, and perhaps to a lesser degree his race. Obama clearly would be the greenest choice for president in quite some time, and many have speculated that America isn’t ready for a black president. So far however, there has been almost no discussion of Obama’s race amongst Republicans, while the Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, have been busily and openly race-bating.

Clinton’s weaknesses are many as a candidate, but she is somewhat less liberal and relatively more responsible on policy than Obama. As a candidate she is far less appealing to Democrats, deeply divisive within her own party and with the Nation as a whole, and she is presently cash-strapped. If victorious, Clinton will likely do more to galvanize GOP voters than almost any other Democrat, and while Obama will be strenuously opposed, his personal style, his race, and his “outsider” status may make him a harder target.

There is of course the prospect, even if it appears unlikely now, for a joint Clinton/Obama ticket. As to which candidate the Democrats ultimately select, or whether they select both, for the most part our feeling is that for now, it likely doesn’t matter. No matter who they nominate, and no matter who we nominate, the feeling in the country is decidedly against the Republicans; the presidency is not likely to go to the GOP.  It’s not pretty, but it’s better that we face the political facts now and focus our energy and resources on the places they can best be utilized.

Thus, it’s time for Plan B: The Senate.

The Senate will be the key to stopping the radical left agenda that will come from either Clinton or Obama. Not only can the Senate stop the revenue generating bills that will come from the House, but the Senate has a key role to play in the formation of foreign policy, the direction of the war, and the confirmation of judges. It is essential that all conservatives bury their differences and pledge their time, money and support to our Republican senatorial candidates.

There are 35 Senate races in 2008, and nearly half of the 49 GOP held seats are up for grabs. The Democrats by contrast have to defend only 12, and 10 are regarded as being relatively safe, while many long-held seats such as John Warner’s Virginia seat and Pete Domenici’s New Mexico seat will be hotly contested as both these veteran senators and others like them will be retiring. They may not all deserve our support, but nonetheless Republicans must pull out all the stops to assist every Republican Senator, including Norm Coleman and others, and must find a way to retain the seat held by Ted Stevens, who is currently under FBI investigation. The Republicans must put all their efforts into retaining every seat we have and doing our best to keep the Democrats from achieving a 51 member true majority, or worse, a filibuster-proof majority.

At the same time, we must work to pick up as many seats as possible in the House, which presents some easier targets, but ultimately has a different policy role than the crucial Senate, which must be regarded as priority one.

Our humble advice to all conservatives is to turn off the 24 hour cable news and stop obsessing about the presidential campaign until after the national party conventions. Focus on the 35 Senate races that will likely be all that stands between us and unrestrained liberalism. If you’re in a state where Senate seats are not up for grabs, adopt a candidate or two, and give of yourself, your time and your resources to keeping or winning seats for the values and issues more important than either the presidency or the Party. The race for the presidency shouldn’t be adandoned, but if we focus on winning in the Congress, we’re sure to drive up vote totals for John McCain.

The party of Ronald Reagan will rise again, in the meantime, lets roll up our sleeves, dig in, and hold down the fort.

Today the House failed to generate enough votes to overturn President Bush’s veto of the SCHIP State Childrens Health Insurance Program)Amendments. Never was a Veto so proper.  The bill was unambiguously designed to be vetoed so that Democrats could call Bush a “baby-hater“. The Democrats never thought this bill would pass.
Despite the Democrats exploitation of a 12 year old boy  President Bush, once again, has shown that he is a capable leader and able to enforce his policies. This will not stop the Democrats attacks, however, as less than half a percent of the American population wrote Congress to oppose the veto:

The good news is that the American people aren’t buying it. We asked you last week to send letters to Congress in support of children’s health care. So far, you’ve sent almost 198,000 letters –many, many more than we ever thought possible.

The SCHIP amendments were horrible. They called for an unnecessary increase in funding and drew funding for the increase from cigarette taxes. Democrats argued that the cigarette tax serves a double benefit in funding the bill and discouraging smoking – basically admitting that their funding center was a depreciating asset – the less people buy cigaretters – the less tax revenue is generated for SCHIP. Also the proposed Amendments unnecessarily expanded the program for families that *can* afford healthcare. The original purpose of SCHIP was to provide a program for children whose parents *could not* afford healthcare.

Moreover, the present program is being thoroughly abused by unintended and likely fraudulent recipients. As noted by House Minority Leader John Boehner, appearing on Fox News Sunday, 

“As an example, in Minnesota, 87 percent of the people enrolled in the children’s health insurance program are adults. Sixty-six percent in Wisconsin…”

That we should expland a children’s health insurance program when almost 90% of recipients in some states are in fact adults is beyond ludicrous. 

The SCHIP Amendments were weak, politically motivated, and deserved to be defeated. The resulting question is how will this affect Democrats? Will the Democratic base, fooled into thinking that Harry Reid really did want the bill passed, be so upset that the House could not overturn Bush’s veto? And if so will that lower the Democrats approval rating an provide an opening for the GOP … only time will tell …
(more…)