A look back so that we can move forward….

As we move into the New Year it is important to take stock of where we are and how we got there. While Obama has made some interesting first steps he has yet to actually do anything and therefore none of my original fears has necessarily subsided. A look back so that we can move forward….

Why Conservatism is still the best choice for America’s future.

I admit it. Obama/Biden was a better ticket than McCain/Palin. Obama and Biden are intelligent, well-informed and disciplined men who connected with the populace. They seem to have a vision for our country and are more prepared to lead us there. If I were voting on personal qualities I would probably have voted Democratic. However, I voted for McCain because he followed a more conservative principle. For me, this was the most important point.

There are two main philosophies of government in 21st century America, Liberalism and Conservatism. Our nation has always been strongest when it was governed from the center-right. Just look back to our most recent history. Clinton, a centrist Democrat was balanced by a republican congress. Reagan was similarly balanced with a Democratic Congress. JFK and Johnson were of the old yellow-dog Democrat mentality. It is only in the last generation that we have seen the Democratic Party lurch towards its more leftist ideologues. However, we are now facing a federal government entirely dominated by the Liberal philosophy. To illustrate why this is a problem we need look no father a field than our neighbors in Europe.

We only need to witness the adoring crowds that came to see Obama speak in Berlin to realize how close the left wing of the Democratic Party is drawn to the continent. Europe has, for the most part, been following a liberal/socialist philosophy for much of the past 75 years. They have down-scaled their militaries, created nationally run health care systems, experimented with government enforced 35-hour work weeks, created year long paternity leaves- all funded by an exorbitantly large tax base. On the surface this sounds good. However, they have done this largely because they have been under the umbrella of America’s military and financial protection. When people need risky or experimental surgery, where do they go? When rogue nations invade their neighbors, or attack their own populace who is expected to stop them? When disasters strike or social needs are not met, which nation often donates the most money, time and resources? The answer to all these questions is us, the United States of America. Why? Because our capitalist society, which values above all else personal freedom tempered by strong moral values, allows us to be the strongest nation on earth. Now I am not saying Obama will turn us into the Europe overnight. But will a Democratic Congress and president put us on a road that will be hard to come back from? Once people get used to the government taking care of them it will be hard to convince them of the necessity to stand on their own again.

Too often people only look to the immediate future and ignore the long-term consequences. A long-term democratically lead nation would probably have universal healthcare, more of the middle class would have an infusion of cash taken from those who earned “more than their fair share”, and other countries would probably like us better, as we would adopt more of a “go-along-to-get-along” European styled foreign policy. These things may be fine for the next four years, maybe even eight years. But if America continues to move down a path where it more and more resembles Europe, where will the next generation be? When China, or Russia, comes into its own, militarily, who will stand up to it? When recessions turn into depressions will an essentially Socialist economy be able to rebound the way our Capitalistic one can? (Who do you think is going to rebound from the current worldwide recession first? The culture that values 35-hour work weeks and six month paid leaves with nearly 50% tax rates, or the one that pushes people to work as hard as they can as long as they can, and at least purports to keep the government out of their pockets?) I am not saying it is pretty or fair, but it has proven to be resilient.

For me, this election was a choice between two visions of the future for America, and that future belongs to my children, not necessarily me. We are going through hard times now, just as we did during the Civil War, the World Wars, The Great Depression, and of course the Cold War. The one constant that has gotten us through those times was our ability, as a nation, to pick ourselves up with our ingrained sense of self-reliance. It was our job to make our futures, not our governments’. The government just needed to stand out of the way. Throughout history all great empires have fallen for essentially the same reason. Be it Greece, Rome, or the British Empire, when a nation begins to think it deserves its riches, when its people feel entitled to prestige and profit without sacrifice, the end is near. If we fundamentally change who we are as a nation, will we be able to weather the next storm that will inevitably come our way? I fear not.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Get Involved in Local Politics

Tired of having to vote for the lesser of two evils? Want to make a difference? Thinking of running for office? Here is a good place to start. Below are some descriptions and reviews of various books and product that will help you on the road to elected office.



The Campaign Manager:  Running and Winning Local Elections

“With the experience of serving as a mayor and a chief of staff in the Oregon Legislature, Shaw … presents a solid, comprehensive approach to managing local campaign—from observing the “ten commandments of campaigning” to avoiding the “cardinal sins” of electioneering. Written in as easily comprehensive and systematic approach, Shaw’s book gives the reader the vital tools and components to not just strategize but also implement a modern local campaign.” –Choice

“The fourth edition of The Campaign Manager still has the useful designs and tools you’ll use every day and enough conceptual guidelines and background to help you invent your own systems when something unpredictable happens. But the elaboration of author Cathy Shaw’s methods for Precinct Analysis, new to this edition, are the crown jewel. Her rigorous model will help you or your staff deliver more actionable and sophisticated planning than most of the hundred-million dollar Presidential campaigns of the last three decades . . . and for a lot less money. No matter how new you are to the game, Shaw will make you smarter. And no matter how experienced you are at it, there are original insights and tools that will build up your effectiveness.” —Jeff Angus, Management consultant and author of Management by Baseball; former Washington state elections committee chair for the Citizens Party

Campaign Craft: The Strategies, Tactics and Art of Political Campaign Management

"Aptly named, because campaigning is a craft as well as a science and an art, this updated undergraduate text describes the history and logic of campaigns up to the highly technological and consultant-centered present. Shea and Burton maintain that this new style of campaigning now affects local elections as well as those at the national level, describing the typical campaign plan, the methods for understanding contexts of the race through demographic research and profiles of candidates and opponents. They examine the strategic thinking behind electoral targeting and polling, and cover voter contact techniques such as fundraising, strategic communications, news coverage, and returning to the grass roots. They close with commentary on the future of political campaign organization."

The Political Campaign Desk Reference

I use The Political Campaign Desk Reference as the basic text in my courses on political campaigning. It's a practical guide that helps my students understand how a winning political campaign is put together. I'm sure many of them will continue to use it after they graduate and start running campaigns of their own

- Terry Grundy, University of Cincinnati

"Urban Lobbying" courses in the School of Planning

"With instruction on how to form the backbone of a strong campaign and how to plan to win, this is the book you don't want your opponent to have. The chapter on fundraising alone will make this book an excellent investment for any candidate or organization"

- Michael P. McNamara, Author

 How to Win Any Election

A complete guide to winning elections - 5 ebooks and sample documents, including a 178 page elections guide that shows Everything you need to know to win your next election!

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes.

What Kind of Stimulus Do We Need?

When it comes to fighting recessions, there's a tendency to see "fiscal stimulus" packages as wasteful, as a form of "throwing money at the problem." The critics have a point. But the conclusion that therefore we should do nothing is also wrong. Instead, careful attention should be paid to the details. Just as a family pinched for cash might find borrowing for the purchase of a new car or appliance prudent while taking a vacation in Las Vegas wouldn't be, some government programs to combat recession make sense while others do not.

Three criteria are crucial for evaluating fiscal stimulus packages. First, does the program target the weakness in the economy that caused the recession, or is it largely peripheral? Second, are the funds going to be spent in a timely fashion? Third, does the program fundamentally strengthen the economy going forward into the expansion phase? A look at the economy's current circumstances suggests that a large fiscal stimulus is needed, but a badly designed one will, in the words of an old song, merely leave America "another day older and deeper in debt." -Lawrence B. Lindsey in The Weekly Standard.

While he goes on to state that tax cuts would be the most efficient stimulus, which I do not necessarily agree with, his point about the stimulus fundamentally strengthening the possibility of future expansion is extremely pertinent. I argued earlier that any stimulus package should be focused on driving us towards energy independence and Mr. Lindsey's criteria support my thesis. First, our hyper-dependency on foreign oil, while not e direct cause of our current woes is certainly a central player in them. Second, work could be started very quickly on various projects if the requisite red tape could be cut through, which a national stimulus plan could do. And third, our collective future would be far rosier with the prospect of a self sufficient energy system in place for the next generation.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Republican Hangover

Republicans are currently suffering a hard hangover from the past two disastrous elections cycles, but there is hope. Just four short years ago the Democrats were shaking their heads wondering what went wrong as George Bush upset John Kerry and gained seats in both Congress and the Senate. A lot can happen in a presidential election cycle. If Republicans want to redeem themselves next time around they need a 12-step plan for recovery, well, let's start with 10 anyway.

1. Stop complaining about 2008: The constant recriminations about whose fault 2008's election was is counterproductive and it makes the party seem like cry babies. Maybe Sarah Palin helped, maybe she didn't; maybe John McCain was too moderate a pick to excite the base, but maybe the base wouldn't have been enough anyway. What happened, happened. The question is where do they go from here?

2. Start developing a net-roots campaign now: One good step would be to copy what the Democrats did well this year. Days of the get out the vote, grass roots campaign carrying a candidate to victory is over, or at least changing. To be successful in the 21st century you need a powerful net-roots campaign. Obama showed his team was masterful at this. Study. Copy. Improve.

3. Be fiscal conservatives again: This is an easy one: stop supporting bail-outs. The conservatives hate them and much of Middle America is leery of the government owning everything. Hold the line; it will pay off electorally in the end.

4. Create a reform agenda: To borrow a phrase from NASA, support measures to make government "smaller, faster, cheaper." Small government is in your DNA. Play to your strengths.

5. Energy, Energy, Energy: Steal the Pickens Plan. You don't need to reinvent the wheel here. Someone has come up with a plan that seems to make sense to most of America. Co-opt it.

6. Work with Obama when you can: The country wants and needs some bipartisanship right now and there are places where you can work with the Democrats: education, financial transparency, and the aforementioned energy policy would be good places to start.

7. Obstruct Obama when you can: While the country wants bipartisanship, it doesn't want a party of pushovers either. Stand up for your core values. Stop earmarks, push for quality judicial appointments, filibuster any extreme leftist proposals, i.e. The Fairness Doctrine.

8. Appeal to youth: While the youth vote was not any larger than normal this cycle, about 17%, it is a large and growing demographic group. You can't afford to write them off as unreachable. The environmental message works with them, so use it. You are the party of Teddy Roosevelt after all- he started the national parks system. Remind voters of that by supporting some pro-business and pro-environment positions. Start by pushing alternative fuels.

9. Appeal to minorities: America is slowing growing into a country of ethnic minorities. Instead of burying your head in the sand and pretending it isn't happening, work with it. Immigration is good for our country when it is done legally. Work across the aisle to pass meaningful reform here. While you're at it, try recruiting some quality minority candidates as well. They are out there. Michael Steele would be a good start.

10. Look for the next great hope: Don't pin all your plans for 2012 on Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. The GOP has a habit of choosing their also-rans as the standard bearers the next time around. It would be much better served to look beyond the obvious and start grooming a new generation of leaders. Bobby Jindal, Charlie Crist or Utah Governor Jon Huntsman would all be interesting choices.

Bottom line- it is not the end of the conservatism, or even the end of the Republican Party. A hangover hurts, and this is a bad one. But it is the morning after, and its time to make those promises of "never again."

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Weekend Book Review

Each weekend we'll bring a new book recommendation. If you'd like other suggestions try our book wheel below.

Neither Liberal Nor Conservative Be: An Action Plan for People Disgusted By Polarized Politics

The author, a political scientist, historian, businessman and former military professional uses illustrations and analogies to explain his points in a lively, easy to read and understand original work. This book is for people who want to understand today's political landscape and how to take action if they aren't happy with what they see. Young people just becoming eligible to vote, as well as seasoned voters should read this book.

People wanting moderate balanced candidates to choose from must speak up. This book shows the reader why this is so and how to do so with maximum impact. Written with the feel of a self-help book, Neither Liberal Nor Conservative Be seeks to stop polarized politics by causing people to explore their political philosophy and think about what they believe with regard to the purpose, rules and definitions of politics and government.

New insights provided include: Why voters feel they are being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils (and what to do about it). Evaluating the acceptability of political solutions to social issues. Developing your own personal political philosophy. Why inconsistency is a key factor enabling polarized politics to exist. Three principles that can be used to overcome inconsistency. How to evaluate political issues without the labels of liberal or conservative. How to talk about politics with unreasoning zealots (on both sides).

Achieving better government by focusing on the desired outcomes of government instead of conflicting accusations about who to fear and who to blame. What issues are today's equivalent of Prohibition and how they can be settled. The conflicts of Polarized Politics will not resolve themselves. Read this book to find out the simple easy things you can do to make a difference.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Democrats being Democrats

Most economists agree that you can’t raise taxes in a recession. To do so only deepens the recession and cuts off any chance of growth which would allow the economy to rebound. This point was made very clear in the many Presidential debates earlier this year, and even President-Elect Obama has backed off of his earlier plans to raise the upper tax brackets immediately upon taking office. Someone needs to explain all this to New York Governor David Paterson, who recently proposed 88 new fees and taxes.

In order to close a $15.4 billion budget gap, Gov. Paterson wants to raise or initiate taxes on such varied items as movie tickets, taxi rides, soda, beer, wine, cigars and massages. Clothes under $110 would also lose their tax exemption. Cable and Satellite TV would become subject to sales tax. There would also be an "iPod tax" on the sale of downloaded music and other "digitally delivered entertainment services."

Anyone with a little economic common sense knows that consumer spending is our economy's driver, so taxes that penalize the poor as much as the rich for buying casual goods and services is counter productive.

"This is where we are," Paterson told reporters. "Maybe we should have thought about this when we were depending on what we thought was inexhaustive collections of taxes from Wall Street - and now those taxes have fallen off a cliff."

Maybe Patterson should look into eliminating some outdated programs or out and out fraud to raise some funds. While a state is not like the federal government in that it cannot operate with a deficit, it doesn’t immediately have to resort to punitive taxes every time the checkbook comes up short. Citizens Against Government Waste is a private, non-partisan and non-profit organization formed in the mid-1980's, and they rank New York as one of the biggest offenders with wasteful spending.

After a welcome interlude of Obama speaking rationally about the economy it seems like Democrats are back to being Democrats again.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Gingrich being McCain?

Joining John McCain who earlier this week critizied the RNC for its attacks on Obama is former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is denouncing Republicans linking President-elect Barack Obama and disgraced Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. What follows is a copy of Gingrich's letter to RNC Chairman Mike Duncan. Tip of the hat to Ben Smith.

"I was saddened to learn that at a time of national trial, when a president-elect is preparing to take office in the midst of the worst financial crisis in over seventy years, that the Republican National Committee is engaged in the sort of negative, attack politics that the voters rejected in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles.The recent web advertisement, “Questions Remain,” is a destructive distraction. Clearly, we should insist that all taped communications regarding the Senate seat should be made public. However, that should be a matter of public policy, not an excuse for political attack.In a time when America is facing real challenges, Republicans should be working to help the incoming President succeed in meeting them, regardless of his Party.From now until the inaugural, Republicans should be offering to help the President-elect prepare to take office.Furthermore, once President Obama takes office, Republicans should be eager to work with him when he is right, and, when he is wrong, offer a better solution, instead of just opposing him.This is the only way the Republican Party will become known as the “better solutions” party, not just an opposition party. And this is the only way Republicans will ever regain the trust of the voters to return to the majority.This ad is a terrible signal to be sending about both the goals of the Republican Party in the midst of the nation’s troubled economic times and about whether we have actually learned anything from the defeats of 2006 and 2008.The RNC should pull the ad down immediately."

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Women from Maine

Who is going to be the most powerful woman in America? Hillary Clinton? Michelle Obama? Sarah Palin? No. No. No. Susan Collins? Olympia Snowe? Maybe. The two senators from Maine are shaping up to be two of the most powerful members of the next Congress, male or female.

The failure of the Democrats to get to that magical number 60 in the senate means that they will have to get some help from across the aisle if they want to pass legislation, and centrist Republicans would be the obvious targets. Snowe has been called the most liberal Republican in the U.S. Senate, and has become widely known for her ability to influence the outcome of close votes and Senatorial filibusters. Susan Collins is a member of The Republican Main Street Partnership and supports stem-cell research. She is also a member of The Republican Majority For Choice, Republicans for Choice, The Wish List, Republicans for Environmental Protection, and It's My Party Too. Her voting record is moderate, which has caused consternation among some hard-line Republicans.

The two have a history of reaching across the aisle to make things happen. On May 23, 2005, Snowe and Collins were two of fourteen senators, known as the Gang of 14, who forged a compromise on the Democrats' use of the filibuster on judicial nominees. This action both curtailed the Republican leadership's attempt to implement the so-called "nuclear option", and broke Democratic opposition to three nominees brought to the Senate floor. This deal has been strongly criticized by both Democratic and Republican partisans, but the compromise did shift the center of gravity in the Senate at the time towards conservatives like Snowe. The Gang played an important role in the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

Together with Sens. McCain, Specter, and hopefully, Coleman, they will be in a position of considerable power for the foreseeable future. Let’s hope the Republican Party can have a big-tent approach and not shun those who will compromise to get things done.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

McCain back to being McCain

McCain: RNC's Obama-Blagojevich Focus Not Helpful

December 14, 2008

In an exclusive interview with This Week, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the Obama transition team should publicly release all information relating to the corruption investigation into Illinois Rod Blagojevich.
"I think that the Obama campaign should and will give all information necessary," McCain told me in his first Sunday interview since the election.

McCain suggested the Republican National Committee's calls for the Obama team to publicly release their conversations with Blagojevich and his people aren't helpful.
"With all due respect to the Republican National Committee, we should try to be working constructively together," McCain said.
"I have some confidence that all of the information will come out. It always does it seems to me," he said.
McCain argued disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich should resign.
"He should," McCain said, "there's a lot of corruption among Republicans and Democrats...I would hope that he resigns. Unfortunately it isn't confined to one city or one state."
--George Stephanopoulos

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Bridge to Nowhere

"The largest new investment in our national infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway system in the 1950s." That was what Obama stated he wanted the proposed stimulus package to be. It has been called the “New” New Deal -- when workers built hundreds of bridges, dams and parkways. But unfortunately this was apparently just rhetoric, a situation that’s becoming all too familiar for Obama supporters. According to the Washington Post, “most of the infrastructure spending being proposed for the massive stimulus package that Obama and congressional Democrats are readying is not exactly the stuff of history, but destined for routine projects that have been on the to-do lists of state highway departments for years. Oklahoma wants to repave stretches of Interstates 35 and 40 and build "cable barriers" to keep wayward cars from crossing medians. New Jersey wants to repaint 88 bridges and restore Route 35 from Toms River to Mantoloking. Scottsdale, Ariz., wants to widen 1.5 miles of Scottsdale Road. “

I argued earlier how this stimulus could be an opportunity to revolutionize our country for the next 100 years, but the new administration apparently wants more of the same. Is this yet another example of “change we can believe in?” There has been a trend over recent weeks of the President-Elect, if not turning his back on what he campaigned on, then certainly modifying it beyond recognition. While as a conservative I don’t necessarily mind some of his reversals, (Iraq timetables and tax hikes), it still doesn’t speak too well of what is to come over the next four years if what many feared is actually the case. Obama is a lot of talk, but little of actual substance.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Weekend Book Review

Each weekend we'll bring a new book recommendation. If you'd like other suggestions try out book wheel below.

Crunchy Cons: The New Conservative Counterculture and Its Return to Roots

Product DescriptionWhen a National Review colleague teased writer Rod Dreher one day about his visit to the local food co-op to pick up a week’s supply of organic vegetables (“Ewww, that’s so lefty”), he started thinking about the ways he and his conservative family lived that put them outside the bounds of conventional Republican politics.

Shortly thereafter Dreher wrote an essay about “crunchy cons,” people whose “Small Is Beautiful” style of conservative politics often put them at odds with GOP orthodoxy, and sometimes even in the same camp as lefties outside the Democratic mainstream. The response to the article was impassioned: Dreher was deluged by e-mails from conservatives across America—everyone from a pro-life vegetarian Buddhist Republican to an NRA staffer with a passion for organic gardening—who responded to say, “Hey, me too!”

In Crunchy Cons, Dreher reports on the amazing depth and scope of this phenomenon, which is redefining the taxonomy of America’s political and cultural landscape. At a time when the Republican party, and the conservative movement in general, is bitterly divided over what it means to be a conservative, Dreher introduces us to people who are pioneering a way back to the future by reclaiming what’s best in conservatism—people who believe that being a truly committed conservative today means protecting the environment, standing against the depredations of big business, returning to traditional religion, and living out conservative godfather Russell Kirk’s teaching that the family is the institution most necessary to preserve.

In these pages we meet crunchy cons from all over America: a Texas clan of evangelical Christian free-range livestock farmers, the policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, homeschooling moms in New York City, an Orthodox Jew who helped start a kosher organic farm in the Berkshires, and an ex-sixties hippie from Alabama who became a devout Catholic without losing his antiestablishment sensibilities.Crunchy Cons is both a useful primer to living the crunchy con way and a passionate affirmation of those things that give our lives weight and measure. In chapters dedicated to food, religion, consumerism, education, and the environment, Dreher shows how to live in a way that preserves what Kirk called “the permanent things,” among them faith, family, community, and a legacy of ancient truths. This, says Dreher, is the kind of roots conservatism that more and more Americans want to practice. And in Crunchy Cons, he lets them know how far they are from being alone.

A Crunchy Con Manifesto

1. We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.

2. Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.

3. Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.

4. Culture is more important than politics and economics.

5. A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship—especially of the natural world—is not fundamentally conservative.

6. Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.

7. Beauty is more important than efficiency.

8. The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom.

9. We share Russell Kirk’s conviction that “the institution most essential to conserve is the family.”

From the Hardcover edition.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

The (Surprising) Positives about Blagojevich’s Arrest

The arrest of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich this week has brought the idea of political corruption to the forefront. Many Republicans are certainly smiling with glee as they were largely chased out of office in 2006 & 2008 by the “culture of corruption” tagline. To be sure the title was somewhat deserved as Larry Craig, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Bob Ney, Don Sherwood, Ted Stevens, etc. had certainly tarnished the brand. Now the Democrats have their own corrupt lineup of William Jefferson, Tim Mahoney, Charlie Rangel & Blagojevich. However, as a quick look at history will show, political corruption is not new, and in fact we have a lot to be thankful for living in the 21st century.

We can look all the way back to the founding of our nation for examples of groups and individuals using political influence for personal gain. In fact in large part the U.S. was founded as a response to British corruption. From early colonization all the way up to the American Revolution, the colonies witnessed some ridiculous levels of corruption. Royal governors and corporate leaders used their official positions to enrich themselves in any way possible. Most considered this a privilege of their offices.


Alas, once we broke from Britain we did no better. In the early 1800’s Alexis de Tocqueville, the famous French political observer, said that "democratic" corruption had replaced "aristocratic" corruption. The American emphasis on rugged individualism, and every man having his price, led to a huge amount of corrupt dealings. Even with the founding fathers' efforts to restrict corruption in government, the fact was that government contracts at many levels provided possibilities for official fraud. From corrupt agents in the Bureau of Indian Affairs to scandals of the Ulysses S. Grant era, the times were rife with political wrongdoings.


As we move through the decades to the latter half on the 19th century and into the 20th we see that the local agencies often outperformed their national counterparts. Tammany Hall in New York City created a political machine that ran on illegal contributions from businesses and other interest groups. Watch the excellent film Gangs of New York, directed by Martin Scorsese, if you want to see up close how corrupt local politics could get. In nearby Boston you have James Curley who is noted for having been elected to the Board of Aldermen in 1904 while in prison, having been convicted of fraud. Until about 1945 the urban political machine was a standard feature of politics.

Which brings us to today. Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) is accused of a wide-ranging criminal conspiracy that includes conspiring to sell or trade the Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Obama, in exchange for financial benefits for he and his wife. Why is this a good thing? Because it proves that we live in an age of mass media where when corruption reaches a certain level it attracts too much attention, and the perpetrators eventually get caught. Gone are the days when good old boy networks could operate completely in the dark. Will we continue to see arrests in the years to come? Will corruption still be a problem when my grandkids come of age? Of course, after all “power corrupts.” But thankfully we live in a time when there is a realistic check on such behavior.

Besides, what would we write about if politicians stopped behaving badly?

 Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes.

1958 vs 2008 Stimulus

500 billion. That is the number being bandied about by the Obama transition team for a new stimulus package. That is a lot of money. And to his credit, President-Elect Obama is not planning on writing a blank check either; he has some plans for all this money. The plan is for a massive infrastructure project- the biggest since Eisenhower’s interstate highway system. Specifically, Obama wants to spend 500 billion dollars to build roads, modernize schools, expand Internet access, improve buildings' energy efficiency, and put better technology in hospitals. Unfortunately, this plan is hopelessly stuck in 1958, not 2008.

This proposed stimulus plan lacks any real social vision for the country’s future- in fact it could actually slow growth rather than foster it. Take one example: roads. While Eisenhower was being revolutionary in imagining an interlocking highway system that would allow drivers access all over the country, can the same be said today? Wouldn’t an investment in maglev technology for public transit be a more forward-looking idea? Or what about completely re-envisioning the metro system to better accommodate today’s population clusters that no longer depend on the large cities the original public transit system was created for? Spending billions of dollars to prop up old infrastructures will do little for us in the short term and even less in the long term.

Innovation is not only required when it comes to old infrastructure but old companies as well. So we come to the auto bailout. It looks as though a temporary fix will be in place and it will be up to the new administration to decide on a long-term plan. Instead of spending another $50-100 billion dollars to hold together 20th century companies, why not force real change. With that amount of investment Detroit could be mandated to create incredibly fuel-efficient hybrids. Bold thinking is going to be required of Americans as they embrace the next century.

One of the biggest challenges facing the world is energy production. We send 300 billion of our dollars into foreign coffers every year. What if part of the stimulus package were to work towards a solution to the energy crisis? We already have a plan that seems to make sense: the Pickens’s Plan. The government could fund the installation of thousands of wind turbines in the Great Plains, the potential wind corridor of the United States due to favorable wind resources and geographic location. It is estimated that these turbines could generate enough power to provide 20 percent or more of the country's electricity supply. With wind energy providing a large portion of the nation's electricity, the natural gas that is currently used to fuel power plants could be used instead as a fuel for thousands of vehicles. This investment in the future could cost as much as $1 trillion, but could be offset by private investment. Regardless, if taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill for billions in stimulus, they should be able to look forward to a real substantial benefit in the long term, and $300 billion kept in-country annually sounds pretty good, not to mention the environmental benefits it would create.

Obama promised real change, a new day in America. It is time to prove it.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

A New /Old Face?

After two terms as governor, he had cut taxes, enacted the most extensive public school reform in any state, restructured health care and, after dealing with some three dozen natural disasters of varying degrees of severity, earned praise for crisis management. In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans, he held an approval rating of 63%. Friendly, self-deprecating, well-read and articulate, he stood in a strong position to capture the 2008 Republican nomination for president—but his last name is Bush.

Jeb Bush, knowing full well that the nation would not elect another member of his family this time around, went into political hiding, coming out only occasionally to give a speech, or host a diner. One of the most interesting and innovative republican governors was effectively off the playing field.

But he may already be eying a return to the political spotlight. With the recently announced retirement of Mel Martinez there is going to be an open senate seat in Florida, and Jeb is seriously considering a run. With his still-potent popularity, he has to be considered a prohibitive favorite for the seat. Does this portend a possible run for national office in 2012? He certainly has a lot to offer.

*He is an intensely practical politician, which would endear him to the business wing of the party as well as moderates.

*He is a man of faith --raised an Episcopalian, later a Roman Catholic --Bush would reassure religious conservatives without scaring the more religiously centrist among us.

*He could help expand the GOP brand top Hispanics. Married to a Mexican, he speaks fluent Spanish, and he insists that legal immigration is good for the nation. Hispanics are "as American in their pursuit of traditional dreams ... as any other group."

*He has a more accomplished resume than most other possible candidates as well as current office holders.

President-Elect Obama has yet to make a single executive decision and the list of potential 2012 opponents is already starting to gel, Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, Jindal, Pawlenty & Romney to name a few. Should we be adding Bush to the list? Maybe.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Gingrich's Focus

Let me start by saying I have always listened to what Newt Gingrich has to say. I have not always agreed with him, and his past personal history is cloudy at best, but he has always been a font of ideas in a sometimes barren political landscape. Just this past summer I proudly signed the petition to “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less,” and had considerable pride in the fact that partly due to that campaign congress did eventually move, albeit too slowly, in the right direction on that issue. But lately Mr. Gingrich has strayed into waters I feel are better left unstirred as we look to rebuild the Republican Party.

Just last week Gingrich was on The O'Reilly Factor warning of "gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us." At a time when unemployment is stretching towards 7%, the big three automakers are on the verge of bankruptcy, and the only retailer not losing money is discount king Wal-Mart, Gingrich wants conservative to focus on “gay and secular fascism?”

This is not what the Republican Party needs to rebuild a governing majority.

On his website visitors are asked to sign a petition on behalf of insufficient references to God in the new Capitol Visitor Center, and his new book/DVD entitled Rediscovering God in America is currently a best seller. His appeal is still wide among conservatives, but he needs to lend his considerable influence to causes that will untie across the spectrum, not just social conservatives.

I know it has become an annual Christmas season talking point- the fact the secular progressives are taking God out of Christmas, and I am just as upset as the next guy when a local town takes down a nativity scene so as not to offend the 10-15% of citizens who are not at least nominally Christian. However, there are lots of people making those arguments; we need our most influential voices focusing on ideas that are most pressing to the nation at large.

How are we going to stimulate the economy?
What should be done about the increasing tensions in India/Pakistan?
How can we avert the next energy crisis?

These are the issues conservatives need to address, and address with new and innovative ideas, if we are to reclaim our hold on the hearts and minds of Middle America. Not gay marriage, not God, not even abortion, will do as the nation faces our current array of problems. That is not to say we need to give up on these issues; they are central to who we are as a party. But, as has been stated numerous times this past election cycle, the nation is essentially centrist. So bringing out divisive social issues as a way of rebuilding the party is a sure way to rebuild an eternally minority party, which would be disastrous, both for Republicans and for the nation.

The unfortunate result of the recent Republican electoral nightmare is that the only people left standing tend to be the most hard-line conservatives. The moderates, who brought balance to the party as a whole, have largely been defeated by conservative democrats helped by the tsunami that was Obama’s presidential campaign.

It is vitally important in the coming year to create a party that will attract not just the most conservative among us, but also the moderates and even some centrist Democrats. This is not just sound electoral strategy, it is also the only way we can solve the problems America faces.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Pondering the Unknowns

Listening to most of the press and blogoshphere, including this one, over the past few weeks one gets the sense that the Obama transion is going well. He is seemlessly working with the Bush administration so as not to repeat the Clinton transition which was universally panned. He is installing exceedingly competent people in important places, whether they idealogically agree with him or not, so that his administration can hit the ground running. And through well-timed and carefully-scripted news conferences he has inserted his economic influence over and above the still current president Bush. However, the honeymoon will not be indefinite.

Obama is still dining out -- in terms of public opinion -- on the fact that he is not Bush. Bush's approval ratings were so dismal and the number of people who believed the country had veered off in the wrong direction so high that his successor was almost certain to reap the benefit. Once Obama becomes president in his own righton Jan. 20 and Bush begins to recede from view, the 44th president will be less able to focus solely on competence and instead will face more persistent questions about his grand vision for the country and how he will take us there.-Chris Cillizza, The Washington Post

Much of what he is able, or unable, to do will be dependent on the ensuing financial crisis. And any international issue that comes up could certainly forestall or rush his hand. But isn't it amazing that after a 16+ month campaign, and a month of post election transition, that we still are not sure where it is Obama wants to take the nation. If anything it is even less clear now, after he has created his storied "team of rivals." Will he veer drastically to the left as most conservatives feared? Will he veer to the right as many on the left are secretly fearing now, even though they won't say it out loud- yet. Or will he succesfully float in the middle, neither angering the right, nor truly pleasing the left?

Not knowing what the future holds is making things complicated for Republicans who would like to know what they are up against. Unfortunately we will just have to wait until after those first 100 days before we know how to react to the new President-Elect. Until then....who knows?

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Election Night Redoux

Minnesota- Franken vs Coleman:
In the final day of the Minnesota U.S. Senate race recount, reports are that 171 uncounted ballots mysteriously turned up and had apparently been uncounted because of a ballot-counting-machine malfunction on Election Day. Al Franken made a net gain of 37 votes from these ballots, as he got 91 of the total, to 54 for Sen. Coleman, (26 went to other candidates). This gives Coleman an official edge of 305 votes, assuming all the challenged ballots will remain uncounted. The Franken campaign somehow insists Coleman's lead is only about 50 votes.

Georgia- Chambliss vs Martin
Two of the last polls give Chambliss what appears to be a solid edge. Public Policy Polling gives him a 7 pt advantage and the Insider Advantage poll has him up by 4. Additional good signs for the incumbent- The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that turnout is light but steady. This probably means the democratic turnout that so helped Obama is not coming out for Martin.

So it looks likely that Republicans will win both of these seats and the question becomes, what does this mean?

It means the Republicans will have to be active participants in the next congress. They won't be able to hide behind a Democratic super-majority and instead will have to engage the other side both on issues they agree on and those they don't. Centrist Republican senators like Susan Collins, Arlen Specter and yes, John McCain, will become pivotal players leading up to 2010. They will feel pressure from the right to obstruct everything that comes down the democratic pike, and they will be pressure from the left to "cross the aisle" and put "country first."

It is going to be an interesting couple of years.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes. 

Root-Causes

One of the hallmarks of the Radical Left is its belief that, if poor people behave badly, the fault is not theirs, but instead it lies with "root causes." The basic idea is that it is not the criminal’s fault; he is simply too disadvantaged to do any better. This belief extends beyond simply the poor, but to all disaffected members of society at large, in fact to people anywhere in the world. Now we have CNN’s Deepak Chopra blaming America for the past weekends attacks in Mumbai.

From his CNN interview: What happened in Mumbai, he told the interviewer, was a product of the U.S. war on terrorism, that "our policies, our foreign policies" had alienated the Muslim population, that we had "gone after the wrong people" and inflamed moderates. And "that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster in Bombay."

Two interviews with Larry King brought more of the same -- suggestions about the role the U.S. had played in fueling assaults by Muslim terrorists, reminders of the numbers of Muslims in the world and their grievances. A faithful adherent of the root-causes theory of crime -- mass murder, in the case at hand -- Dr. Chopra pointed out, quite unnecessarily, that most of the terrorism in the world came from Muslims. It was mandatory, then, to address their grievances -- "humiliation," "poverty," "lack of education." The U.S., he recommended, should undertake a Marshall Plan for Muslims. - Dorothy Rabinowitz Wall Street Journal

It is this kind of blame-the-victim mentality that many on the Right fear that a newly emboldened Left will promulgate. While there is certainly merit in looking at all sides of an issue as complex as Islamic terrorism to simplify it to the extent that some would have us do is folly.

Dr. Chopra wants the U.S. to address Muslim’s poverty and lack of education? How, and more important, why should we do that exactly? Islamic countries are sovereign nations, who unless I am mistaken, do not want anything to do with us. Much as Dr. Chopra would like to solve the world’s problems with international social programs, that will not work. Ask any parent, you do not reward bad behavior. Bad behavior must be punished, and when that behavior is mass murder, there is only one appropriate punishment.

Post sponsored by Quality-Resumes.