Will Tea Party Republicans keep their promises?

We've seen the pattern again and again. A movement arises with high ideals, gains power, gets elected, and quickly sells out its ideals in order to gain additional power. It's been seen on the Left and the Right and in the Middle. Now the question is will the Tea Party follow the same course or will they be able maintain some level of intellectual honestly? And perhaps more importantly, can they stay honest without sacrificing actual accomplishment?

Republicans campaigned coast to coast on, among other things, a promise to cut $100 billion out of the federal budget.

But now they are talking about cuts as slim as $30 billion, blaming the change on the fine print that no one read -- or if they read, did not understand.

It turns out the $100-billion figure meant $100 billion from a budget that President Barack Obama proposed, which was never passed. And now that the fiscal year is nearly half over, well, there's just no way ...

They say no War Plan survives contact with the Enemy. My guess is we should prepare for some disappointment.

Texas Republican candidate talks violent overthrow

Emotions are running high as we come into the final days of the 2010 election. Tea Party candidates are passionate, and Democratic candidates are desperate. So it is perhaps not surprising that extreme statements are made. But it is shocking to hear of one Texas congressional candidate openly discussing the violent overthrow of government, if the 2010 elections do not bring about change.

In the interview, Brad Watson, political reporter for WFAA-TV (Channel 8), asked Broden about a tea party event last year in Fort Worth in which he described the nation's government as tyrannical.

"We have a constitutional remedy," Broden said then. "And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution."

Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to "alter it or abolish it."

"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain's King George III.

Passion in political debate is no vice, but reasonableness is a virtue! The Founding Fathers turned to violence only AFTER trying every other possible remedy. It was only two years ago that Republicans controlled the Federal government. We have plenty of remedies left. (And "losing a valid election" is NOT evidence of tyranny.)

Republican Scott Brown wins Mass. Senate Seat

It seems like so much of the politics surrounding Barack Obama is driven inexorably by history, defying expectations and stereotypes. His own rise to power dumbfounded critics - a relatively obscure junior Senator became president over a Hillary Clinton (the assumed nominee from the day she announced). Now, the Obama agenda is threatened by another wave of history as Republican Scott Brown has defeated Democrat Martha Coakley to win the senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy. This seat has been held by a Democrat for for decades, and Massachusetts has not sent any Republican to the Senate since 1972 - two year before I was born.

Brown's victory was so sweeping, he even won in the Cape Cod community where Sen. Edward Kennedy, the longtime liberal icon, died of brain cancer last August.
"While the honor is mine, this Senate seat belongs to no one person, no one political party," Brown told his supporters Tuesday night. "This is the people's seat," he added to chants of "People's seat!"
Brown will become the 41st Republican in the 100-member Senate, which could allow the GOP to block the health care bill. Democrats needed Coakley to win for a 60th vote to thwart Republican filibusters.

A Humble Proposal

Okay, Barack Obama is now president-elect. We are looking at a Democrat-dominated House and Senate. The age of Republican dominance is officially ended. But let's not look on this as an entirely negative development. Every revolution eventually becomes the entrenched bureaucracy - and thus requires a revolution of its own to correct its flaws. The beauty of he American system is that these "revolutions" can occur thru elections and an orderly transition of power.

The Republicans lost for mostly one reason: Americans no longer understand what it means to be a "Republican" or "Conservative." Conservatives came to power preaching small government, low taxes, a strong defense, and strong commitment to Life. They ost power when their President brought about the largest government in history, stopped talking about Life, and over-extended our defensive forces in two wars. As of now, the only ideal that voters associate with Republicans is "low taxes". How can one trust that one ideal to build a government around?

Let me propose 5 points around which to center a rebuilding of the Republican Party. And yes, I am arguing for keeping the Republican Party as a Conservative Party. The order of these points is NOT by priority, but simply by what order they came to my mind.

1. Taxation drives the economy. High taxes will always slow it, low taxes will always stimulate it.

Please note, this is NOT a one-note "Always lower taxes" mantra. It is a statement about how the system works. This allows the raising of taxes in time of War or crisis, with the understanding that the economy will be slowed. But it also points out that when we can lower taxes, we should because it will create jobs and wealth.

2. Human life is precious. From conception to expiration, life should only be taken after due process of law.

This covers being anti-abortion (though allowing for rape, incest, life-of-mother cases, potentially, given due process and analysis), being careful about application of the Death Penalty, and being careful about sending our soldiers to war without a true casus belli and endorsement by the branches of government.

3. In America, political power is distributed between State and Federal hands and given fundamentally by the People. Each should have their own sphere of influence, and stay out of the spheres of influence of the others.

This means a rollback of so many Federal mandates over non-Federal issues. It reinforces that all Rights lie fundamentally with individuals, and that the Nation has no inherent right to take any right away. It is all by social compact. Let the States run education, morality laws, etc. Let the Federal government run defense, manage interstate business, etc. Let the people live their lives. Stop trying to solve all problems with whatever office your party happens to own at that moment.

4. The primary role of the Federal Government is to provide for a common defense and ensure domestic tranquility.

Maintain a strong army, which does not merely mean a large army. Take care of our soldiers. Do not expend American lives in discretionary wars (i.e. no preemptive wars). Be slow to join battle, but once joined the battle must be fully-funded and supported.

Focus also on rebuilding and strengthening such shops as FEMA and the Treasury Department. These are critical to getting thru crises and for maintaining an even keel for the country.

All other priorities for the Federal government should be secondary to these two. That includes such hot-button issues as Social Security, Health Care, Education, etc.

5. Checks and balances are essentially to the operation of our government. We should look to strengthen these checks, not weaken them, at all times.

Forget the insanity about invoking Executive Privilege to avoid Congressional inquiries and invoking Congressional Privelege to avoid Judicial inquiries, Mr. Vice President. States should be actively checking Federal power. Congress should be actively checking Executive power. The Courts should be actively checking Congressional power. The Press should be actively checking ALL power. The People should be actively checking the Press and its own representatives. We are a nation OF the People, and should never let any one man/woman/office become the be-all, end-all. We should consider such moves as more term limits and not allowing any office-holder to vote on their own compensation as ways to keep these checks and balances working.

There is my list. What do Mod-Bloggers think? Did I go too far? Did I miss anything? How would you rebuild the Republican party?

Ron Paul endorses Constitution Party Candidate

In a move which is sure to alienate some of his more Libertarian supporters - but which is surely in line with his maverick nature - Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin, presidential candidate of the Constitution Party. This can't come as a great shock to John McCain who has been trying to get the endorsement of the congressman who gained notoriety as the only GOP candidate in the primary who opposed the War in Iraq. Personally, I think the endorsement has more to do with a desire to "shake things up" and keep people guessing than with any true sense of alliance between the "Ron Paul Revolution" and the Consitution Party.

It will be interesting to see if this has any impact in the Fall. The Constitution Party was already the fastest-growing third party (much to the annoyance of the Libertarian Party, which has held the distinction of being the largest third party for a long time). But to date, it has shown little impact on the national stage.

Thoughts on the 2008 Republican Convention (Wednesday Night)

I decided to stay up and watch all the major speeches last night at the Republican Convention. Here is a summary of what I thought about each person’s speech.

Sarah Palin- Grade: A- She did everything she needed to do and came off as one of the most at ease speakers of the night. I was surprised at how aggressive she decided to be in going after Obama and Biden, but I guess I shouldn’t have been since that is one of the roles of the vice presidential candidate. She did not invoke the name of Hillary Clinton which was a good choice. She took on the attack of her being a “small town mayor” well. Overall, she did an excellent job and I can’t imagine anyone being less likely to vote for her following this speech.

Rudy Guliani- Grade: B+- Rudy was the attack dog for the night. His “New York” personality came out and allowed him to hit both Obama and Biden hard while mixing in humor. The best new line of attack on Obama was begun by Guliani who contrasted the jobs that Palin and McCain have held with that of Obama who’s only job has been as a Community Organizer. He questioned with humor what a community organizer really does.

Mike Huckabee- Grade B+- The “Huckster” used his humor and public speaking experience to weave together a speech that seemed less partisan than it was. Huckabee mainly focused on the “small town” values of Palin and to dispel the myth that all Republicans grey up rich as he, Palin and many others came from humble beginnings.

Mitt Romney- Grade B- My Man Mitt did a nice job, but did not give a speech that will propel him to be the next Republican nominee. I did think it was interesting that he got the second warmest welcome from the crowd after Palin. The delegates in the hall definitely like him and that will help him in the future. Overall, his speech was not as good as either his “religion” speech or his speech to CPAC where he dropped out of the presidential race.

Linda Lingle- Grade B+- The governor of Hawaii was a surprise to me. I had never heard of her and found it interesting that a state that recently has voted for John Kerry and Al Gore would have a Republican governor. She did a nice job. She was a good person to set the stage for Palin as they have worked together as governors and also wasn’t so great a speaker that she would overshadow Palin.

McCain vs McCain

I have never been a big fan of John McCain. While I do think he is firm in his beliefs, we have seen over and over again that his beliefs are not quite the same as the average American or even the average Republican. I would rather have had more an idealist and a statesman.

Now that the Clinton/Obama contest is for all intents over, attention will turn toward the weaknesses of Senator McCain. This video is one such attempt, by a clearly anti-McCain website. Get ready. This is only the beginning.

McCain on Disability

One of the downsides of being the oldest man ever to seek a first term in the Presidency is that people are always wondering if you are up to the job. Rumors that Ronald Reagan was already succumbing to Alzheimer's-related dementia only make things worse for John McCain. But he has steadily proclaimed his good health and vital nature. But this may have been undermined by a new report that he is receiving Disability benefits from the Navy because of significant impairment.

On Monday, McCain's staff identified the retirement benefit as a "disability pension" and said that McCain "was retired as disabled because of his limited body movements due to injuries as a POW."

McCain campaign strategist Mark Salter said Monday night that McCain was technically disabled. "Tortured for his country -- that is how he acquired his disability," Salter said.

Certain types of military and veterans pensions are either partially or completely tax-exempt, depending on the seriousness of the disability. In McCain's case, the exemption is 100%.

Now, FDR served ably without the use of his legs and JFK served while suffering from crippling back pain. So, this is not to say that a person can not be a good president while having disabilities. But I think it is fair to ask in this case whether John McCain would truly be able to serve out his term if elected. It makes his choice of VP all the more important to his viability in the general election.

Has Ron Paul dropped out?

Ron Paul's "revolution" has been money-rich, but delegate-poor in this election cycle. Dr. Paul has cast himself as the "true conservative" of the G.O.P, and has suffered for standing against many of the ideas that the so-called "neoconservatives". He had pledged to fight to the very end, but recently sent a letter to his supporters that appears to indicate he is ending his presidential bid in order to defend his Congressional seat.

But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties — just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.

I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

Of course, with Dr. Paul winning only 14 delegates nationally, one must wonder if that itself was not a rejection of his ideas on some level. Or at least a rejection of his personality. Then again, it was nice having someone on the platform forcing the other candidates to defend the Iraq War. It sharpened and clarified their differences. And that was a useful thing to everyone.

Dobson endorses Huckabee

The story here. I have to wonder if this a true "endorsement" or merely Dobson trying to find ANY way to stop McCain. I strongly believe it is the latter.

Romney to drop out today!

So says Time. Seems a bit premature to me, but then if he believes he can not win, why not give the party more time to heal and prepare for the November run?

Update: 1:15 PM Mitt Romney has dropped out of the race.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This is an interesting strategy, and essentially sets up the key issue for the next campaign to be the War on Terror. Up until now, the Democrats were comfortable that their supporters were against the War in Iraq, so they have been running on Universal Health Care and other Economic issues. Now, they will have to return to the debate. And the American people have not made up their mind yet.

The one good thing to say: I think we can say with confidence that Mitt Romney did NOT lose because of his Mormon faith. In the end, nearly everyone I knew who decided not to vote for him had a real different with his political positions or his character.

Why are Republicans facing minority status in all branches of government?

George Will believes it all comes back to ethics and earmarks, and the fact that the Republican majority failed to control its more pork-hungry impulses.

In his State of the Union address, the president vowed to veto any appropriation bill "that does not cut the number and cost of earmarks in half." Coburn tartly notes that although Congress hardly needs 5,500 earmarks -- half of last year's total -- the president's goal would be met if Republicans themselves quit earmarking. That fact goes far to explain the Republicans' current and future minority status.

The Company We Keep

There is an old saying that goes something like "They will know us by the company we keep." What do Rudy Guliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Pataki, and Christopher Shays have in common?

1. They are all considered Liberal Republicans by most in the party.
2. They are all Pro-Choice.
3. They all endorsed John McCain for President.

John McCain is making his way around the country with these and other politicians. These are all good public servants, but they are not the base or epitome of the Republican Party. Do we really want to nominate someone who who will undoubtably nominate these type of Republicans to important cabinet positions? I hope this makes you think.

In Defense of John McCain

In the spirit of fairness, here is a spirited defense of John McCain by Michale Medved. He lays out his defense well by responding to the 6 main attacks leveed at McCain.

Why You Should Vote For Rudy...and Not John McCain

Dennis Prager has up a good article explaining why Conservatives should vote for Rudy Guliani. In the article he also lays out some good reasons why conservatives should not vote for John McCain. It is not too long and definitely worth a read.

Huckabee's cash is going the way of Fred Thompson

It is being widely reported now that Mike Huckabee's campaign is critically short of funds with many workers accepting no salary or simply quitting for lack of payment. With Florida coming, which requires expensive television advertising, and Tsunami Tuesday after that with multiple states to cover in a very short time period, questions are being raised as to whether Huckabee can go the distance.

Campaign contributions continue to come in, he said. But he acknowledged that Huckabee is stretched thin as he tries to compete in Florida's primary and many of the two dozen states holding contests Feb. 5.
Huckabee's campaign has stopped arranging charter flights, hotel reservations and other means of helping journalists keep up with his movements. News organizations pay their own expenses, but empty seats on charter planes were costing the campaign money.
"We are running our campaign in a very frugal manner," Huckabee said. "We have operated in the black. If we don't have it, we don't expend it."

This, of course raises the question of whether Social Conservatives will have a horse left in the race for Tsunami Tuesday. Could the race be transformed if they are forced to embrace Mitt Romney, to avoid voting for Rudy Guiliani or John McCain? Or will one of them be able to make the argument and re-form the Reagan coalition? Or will Mike Huckabee see a miraculous comeback?

And I have to wonder, if not for McCain-Feingold, would Huckabee be able to stay in the race longer?

Analysis of Fred Thompson's Fall

This is the best analysis I have seen of the pros and cons of Fred Thompson's run for the Presidency.

He was NOT lazy; his command of policy equaled or exceeded that of his rivals, and he was, as he said, pretty clearly a consistent conservative for his public life. But his staff was poorly managed; it started much too late; his campaign was riven by internal fueds and suspicions: one faction accused the other of leaking to reporters.

Here's hoping Fred makes a return in some form, perhaps as VP.

Why I Should Vote For McCain

For about a month and a half now, I have been considering voting for McCain. Saying that sounds so completely foreign to me, that I have spent this time trying to both find reasons not to vote for McCain and reasons to vote for one of the other candidates. CRChair has both asked why he should vote for Huckabee and stated why he won't be voting for McCain. Here is my logic for why I should vote for McCain.

First, let's start with the field of candidates:

Rudy Giuliani - His decidedly pro-abortion stance and liberal views has knocked him out as a candidate in my mind.

Mitt Romney - I just don't trust him. He reminds me too much of Kerry. He'd probably do a great job if he would pick a side and stick to his guns, but I can't vote for him without knowing who he is.

Ron Paul - He has many online supporters and I'll probably be blasted for this, but he's crazy. When I hear his ideas, I think, "That would have been great information to have when we were making the wrong decision." Getting us back to the gold standard just won't work without a complete upheaval and revaluing of things. Personally, I don't want my house value to drop just so we can get back on a gold standard.

Alan Keyes - With less visibility than Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo, Keyes may be the only person who seriously thinks he's running... and even he may not think that. Besides, he's already lost to Obama once. Going up against Clinton would be even worse.

Fred Thompson - I like Fred Thompson. He's one of my top three picks. Unfortunately, he's rumored to be leaving the race. Even if he doesn't, he's not running like he wants to be president. Clinton would chew him up in the general election. I'd like to see him make a strong run or even be the VP on the ticket, but I don't see it as a winning ticket.

Mike Huckabee - He's a second of my top three picks. He's got support, especially among religious conservatives. Unfortunately, while he's socially conservative, he's fiscally liberal. Huckabee would be like having four or eight more years of GWB, but with less foreign policy experience than GWB currently has. I feel like I voted for the social conservative and got duped the first time GWB ran, so I'm hesitant to vote for the same thing again. I do like the idea of not having an income tax, but a national sales tax promotes saving, not spending. I don't know if our economy could handle less spending.

John McCain - That leaves John McCain. I hate to vote for someone because they're the last one left. After all, he could just be the last one I looked at and be worse than the other candidates.

First, I'll answer Matt's points.

Age: Yes, McCain is the oldest candidate, but then, so was Reagan when he ran. People are living longer and McCain will be younger than when Reagan left office. That being said, age isn't really that important. Health is. If McCain is healthy enough to be president for one term, then age shouldn't be a factor. After all, President Harrison died of pneumonia shortly after taking office. None of us are guaranteed life, that is why we have measures set up to take over the office if the president should fall sick or die.

Immigration: Yes, McCain has been soft on immigration, but he also realizes that we need to fix the problem of illegal immigration by securing our borders before we start kicking people out. Otherwise, we'll just have to kick them out again and again.

Fiscal Responsibility: This is actually one of the reasons I am voting for McCain. He is against pork spending and realizes that we need to be good stewards of our money. Yes, he did vote against the tax cuts, but that was because we needed to cut spending. Cutting spending means that someone is upset about not getting as much federal money. Tax cuts resonate well with constituents. McCain wanted to make sure that spending was cut rather than furthering the national debt and knew that without a tax cut, spending wouldn't be cut.

Pro-Life: Yet another reason that I am voting for McCain. The National Right To Life PAC has up a PDF with the candidates views here, but the do not appear to fully quote McCain. While McCain is OK with stem cell research on existing lines and in cases of in-vitro fertilization, he is not OK with creating new stem-cell lines. Would I like him to be against all stem cell research? Yes. Personally, I haven't seen evidence of neonatal stem cell research taking off. The advances seem to be in adult stem cell research. That being said, McCain does make the point "I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding." I have an easier time agreeing with babies that will be discarded. I, admittedly, have a hard time agreeing with purposefully destroying babies that are in a frozen state. I'd much rather see them used for couples that desperately want to have a baby, can't, but would be willing to carry another's baby from their in-vitro attempt. You can see McCain's voting record and his National Right To Life report card.

McCain-Feingold: I agree with McCain that political votes should not be bought. Having contribution limits is one way to do this. The other part of the bill, the part that limits free speech is the bigger issue in my mind. This part should be overturned by the courts.

The McCain Surprise: McCain is a maverick, but he's a maverick that sticks to his guns. If we realize what it is we're voting for, I don't think there will be too many surprises. He also has a lifetime conservative rating of 83% from The American Conservative Union. In comparison, Fred Thompson has an 86% rating.

Is McCain a perfect candidate? Absolutely not. As I stated above, McCain-Feingold, while good intentioned, should not have passed as it restricts free speech. I'd like to see McCain not only be anti-abortion, but also be anti-stem cell research. I don't agree with him on his views on the environment.

I do think that he will vote conservatively when it comes to abortion and I do think he will help rein in the federal budget, which will in turn help cut taxes and bring about a turn in the economy. I also think he can win. He won conservative South Carolina. Rasmussen Reports gives him an over 50% chance of becoming the Republican nominee. At the end of December, they had him beating Clinton 49% to 43% (Google cache).

What worries me about McCain? First and foremost, in the past McCain has not been known as being the friend of the conservative. Why am I leaning towards McCain? What am I missing? Second, I fear that he will choose Joseph Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman is more liberal than McCain which would trouble me. Hopefully McCain will choose a more conservative running mate who has the heart of the evangelical voters... perhaps a McCain-Huckabee ticket? This would bring in the evangelical voters while giving Huckabee the foreign policy experience he would need to make a run for president following McCain.

Will I vote for McCain? As far as I can tell, I think I should. He appears to fit my views more than the other candidates and he has a chance to win. That being said, why should I vote for your candidate instead?

Does Talk Radio Matter Anymore?

Will talk radio play a role in this year's election? Michael Medved has up an interesting piece on the lack of effectiveness of the major conservative talk show hosts in affecting the South Carolina primary. Wit Rush and Sean Hannity (plus a slew of other conservatives) questioning both McCain and Huckabee's conservativeness, they both were a distant 1st and 2nd in the South Carolina primary which is thought of as a conservative state.

WHAT IF: Will the GOP need a compromise candidate?

Not for the first time, political analysts are raising the specter of a Republican convention with no clear nominee which would require political wheeling and dealing in order to come up with a candidate for president. The pundits are mostly pointing back to the convention that nominated Dewey, who lost to the Democrat Truman. But I am starting to wonder if they should be looking back to the convention that nominated Abraham Lincoln - arguably one of the greatest presidents and UNarguably the greatest Republican president. (I think even Reagan himself would agree to that.)

It is too soon to really think this is a certainty, but it is not too soon to see that we may be a Lincoln-esque juncture in American history. Like Lincoln, we have a highly polarized America (him: slave/free, us: red/blue). Like Lincoln, we face a time of unique pressures and the war (him: civil war, us: War on Terror). Like Lincoln, we see a Republican party desperate to define itself and to resolve the splinters within (him: abolitionism vs states rights, us: religious values vs economic conservatism).

Does the Republican Party have a Lincoln this time around? Do we have a compromise candidate who can both be the standard-bearer, and re-unify the party? Lincoln used the Civil War as a means to reforge the party by recruiting his former rivals to his cabinet. Do we have anyone running now who can do that? Or is there anyone waiting in the wings who could do so?

I am interested to see the opinions of Mod-Bloggers on this topic. I have my own thoughts about who has the potential to do this, and who does not. But I want to ready your opinions first.