Ken Blackwell: Reagan Coalition Must Unite

There are three pillars of the Reagan Coalition: Social Conservatives, Economic Conservatives and National Security Conservatives. When all three of these pillars are united, the Republican Party wins. When they are not united, disaster happens.

That is what happened in 2006 and 2008. There was no unity between these three pillars. That is the reason for the massive losses on November 4th. Some in the party, like Colin Powell, are saying that we should abandon Social Conservatism altogether, but the GOP moved away from Social Conservatism in 2008 and we lost big time. Clearly, abondoning Social Conservatism is not the way to go.

Ken Blackwell, writing for Town Hall, shows us what this unity means for us and why it is so important. He writes about the concerns of Social Conservatives:

The issue of judges, most especially the Supreme Court, has been the foremost issue for social conservatives for a generation. It has been the highest priority for the pro-life movement ever since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Lawsuits since 2003 involving gay marriage have made it the focal point on that issue as well. The courts have also been ground-zero since the 1960s on controversies involving faith and religion. And after the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the courts might become the central arena over Second Amendment rights as well.

But that doesn't mean that Economic Conservatives shouldn't be right alongside:

In 2007, the Supreme Court handed down Massachusetts v. EPA, where some states were suing the federal government to force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate all sources of carbon dioxide. The theory was greenhouse gases such as CO2 cause global warming and should be designated a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The Court stunned legal observers, turning all sorts of longstanding legal doctrines on their heads, and decided the suit was proper. It then ordered the EPA to decide whether CO2 and other greenhouse gases affect the environmental and, if so, to set up a regulatory scheme that will control every source of these gases in America—including every car. The EPA is still working to implement the Court’s order. This decision, criticized by conservative legal scholars as an activist ruling, could cost the American economy hundreds of billions—and possibly over a trillion—dollars. The EPA case will impact countless businesses across the country, with devastating consequences. Economic conservatives should wake up to this decision as a sign that a 5-4 majority of the four liberals on the Court, plus the Court’s one moderate, are willing to engage in economic policymaking through judicial fiat that could have a crippling impact on business.

And what about National Security Conservatives?

The Supreme Court has recently begun second-guessing the policy judgments of the president and Congress on how to manage national security matters arising from an ongoing war. This is completely unprecedented in American history. The most extreme example was the Boumediene v. Bush decision. The Supreme Court held in a 5-4 split decision that the writ of habeas corpus extends to terrorists captured on the battlefield that are not U.S. citizens and held on foreign soil. Habeas corpus gives these terrorist detainees the right to challenge their detention in civilian U.S. courts. Military personnel can be forced to testify under oath and classified evidence can be forced to be revealed. All the other rights designed to protect American citizens can be exploited by our enemies to gain release back onto foreign battlefields. This stunning decision changes American national security policy forever. Dozens of lawsuits are already underway, brought by many of these terrorists seeking either release or for the government to publicly expose the intelligence gathered against them and their terrorist networks. One national security law expert I consulted informed me this one decision is the single worst national security mistake the Supreme Court has ever made in our country’s history.

All three branches of Conservatism must unite now and over the next four years do everything in our power to prevent the socialists in the Obama Administration and the socialists of the Democrat Party from completely taking over our judicial system and forever ruining the fabric of the American way of life with their twisted ideas of government intervention enforced by judicial activists who are not responsible to any electorate.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Reagan Coalition Must Unite
Ken Blackwell
TownHall.com
December 12, 2008

The Time For Complaining Is Over! The National Campaign Is Now!

My God! Here it is! May! And there are still several sore loser types who refuse to accept the fact that John McCain is going to be the GOP nominee for President in 2008!

Just who are these people? Well, they claim to be Conservatives. Many of these self-styled Conservatives are hoping for a Dem victory in November in the mistaken belief that somehow a stronger, more energized Republican Party will come out the other end. Some are even suggesting that at the Convention, John McCain should step aside and allow someone else to run for President. Sorry, but that is the lamest idea I've heard yet.

What really irritates me about these self-styled Conservatives is their extreme short-sightedness and their inability to accept responsibility as a group.

What would happen if the Dems win the White House in November? Alot, and most of it bad. Not only would we see our economy get beaten down by higher taxes and a full scale retreat from the terrorists, we would see massive appointments of leftist judges to Federal benches and at least two leftists appointed to the Supreme Court. That is the short-sightedness of those who believe a Dem win will result in a stronger GOP. The exact opposite is true. It will weaken the position of the GOP and we won't be able to re-strengthen it for another 30 to 40 years. Those Republicans who want to see a McCain defeat would do well to look beyond 2008 and 2012 and see what they are really pushing for.

And then there are those who say they would vote for Republican Congressional candidates while leaving the door open for a Dem White House. The idea here is that by retaking the Senate, it would force a Dem President to appoint more Conservative jurists to SCOTUS. Well, let's look at historical precedent on that issue.

In 1994, the Republicans gained control of the U.S. Senate through "good, Conservative leadership." That good leadership failed to stop the confirmation of Ruth Bader-Ginsberg to the Supreme Court, despite a GOP majority. Even though Republicans had more than enough votes to stop the seating of an uber-liberal to SCOTUS, she was seated anyway. Now, imagine what would happen with a Dem-controlled White House and a Dem-contolled Senate (which is looking more likely than a GOP-controlled Senate at this point). That is why we need to look beyond 2008 and 2012 and contemplate the consequences of our actions today. Anyone out there who still thinks that a Dem winning the White House would be good for the GOP needs to go get their head examined. It would be a disaster for Conservatives everywhere.

Now, what about this "group responsibility" thing? I asked about this in a blog posting back on February 12, 2008 and no one ever bothered to answer my question. Here it is: Where was the Conservative Base of the Republican Party on Super Tuesday and during the primaries and campaigns prior?

I don't know where they were, but I do know where they were not. They were not in the voting booths nor were they out campaigning for candidates with solidly Conservative credentials.

Think I'm joking? Look at the combined support of Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Tommy Thompson. The three of them didn't equal the support enjoyed by Rudy Giuliani. Where was the Conservative Base of the GOP? I was a supporter of Tom Tancredo and I was doing everything I could to support his campaign. I blogged, I donated money and I participated in polls to support him right up to the day he announced he was dropping out.

But I don't feel like the GOP let me down. I feel like my fellow Conservatives abandoned me. And yes, I am referring to those same Conservatives who were conspicuously absent on Super Tuesday and before.

So, now these same Conservatives who were nowhere to be found prior to John McCain winning the GOP nomination are getting energized. I'm sorry but their energy is coming several months too late for me to seriously listen to anything they have to say. The energy with which they disparage John McCain today would have been better spent rallying around Tancredo, Hunter or Thompson back in December of 2007. In other words, the vaunted Conservative Base is just a little more than a day late and a dollar short.

So, the time for complaining is long since over. If you are one of those self-styled Conservatives who wants to see a McCain defeat in November, before you complain to me about my support for the Senator from Arizona, please explain to me the conspicuous absence of the Conservative Base during the Super Tuesday voting and during the months before. I'd love to read that excuse.

P.S. Please don't try the lame excuse that the media picked McCain. I refuse to believe that 8.6 million GOP voters allowed themselves to be swayed by a left-leaning media rather than thinking for themselves. If that were true then it wouldn't matter who the GOP nominee was at this point.

The Base Is Wrong About The Gang Of 14

It seems as though the so-called Conservatives of the Republican Party (I say "so-called" because they were so conspicuously absent during the early primary campaigns) are grasping at anything to snipe at John McCain about and try to paint him as a liberal. They usually fail when confronted with the facts.

So let's look at the facts behind the Gang of 14 deal that occurred in 2005. The claim is that John McCain sold out the GOP for personal gain. But let's check that against the facts of history. From Richard Baehr writing for Real Clear Politics:

For the GOP in its then-ascendant state, such a nuclear option seemed like a good way to stick it to the Democrats, and get a bunch of judicial nominees who had been held up through the confirmation process quickly. ... But the big test came when Samuel Alito was nominated to the Supreme Court. Alito was confirmed by a vote of 58-42, with 54 Republicans and 4 Democrats supporting him. Lincoln Chafee, desperately trying to appease Democratic voters in his home state of Rhode Island , was the lone GOP Senator to vote no. ... But the tally of 58 for confirmation is indicative of the fact that had the 7 Democrats who agreed to the compromise all voted no on a cloture vote, Alito's nomination could have been held up by the minority through a filibuster. ... The gang of 14 compromise helped two Supreme Court nominees get approved quickly and a few Appeals Court nominees to be confirmed as well. Use of the nuclear option in 2005 would have enabled a few additional Appeals Court nominations to get through in 2005 and 2006. But it would also have given a blank check for the next Democratic President who took office with a majority for his party in the Senate to get all of his or her judicial nominations approved from the start. That would be a really bad deal for the GOP, much worse than the gang of 14 deal, a compromise in which the GOP gained more than it lost.

This is the most reasoned view of the "Gang of 14 Deal" I have ever read and it is 100% accurate in it's facts and historical timeline.

Remember that the GOP is in great danger of losing at least three more seats in the Senate. Couple that with a Dem winning the White House and the Gang of 14 Deal is going to look incredibly sweet by comparison.

And I will admit that I too was against the Gang of 14 until a few months later (and even moreso when the Republicans lost control of the Senate in 2006) when I saw what the ultimate result was, and what it could have been, exactly as Baehr described it above.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Base Is Wrong About The Gang Of 14
Richard Baehr
RealClearPolitics.com
January 30, 2008

It is beginning to look as if Sen. John McCain may have been smarter than we thought on this deal.

Conservatives Only Have Themselves To Blame For The McCain Mutiny

Normally, I like to read what others have already written at the National level and then provide my own commentary to such issues. After all, I don't have a lot of time to spend writing my own essays on a regular basis. I do have a life outside of blogging and I have a family to support too.

But now, I feel compelled to write my own thoughts as an original piece. You've probably noted that my last few blog entries have expressed support for the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, Senator John McCain. You probably also know that my support for the GOP candidate originally went to Rep. Tom Tancredo. Later, that would turn to Fred Thompson and finally to Mitt Romney as each candidate dropped out of the race. Once Romney capitulated, that left John McCain. In the interest of Party unity and out of concern for what the potential alternatives are, I am throwing my support behind John McCain.

And yet, I read on various websites, message boards and political blogs that there are probably thousands if not millions of self-described Conservatives who state flatly and unequivocally that they will never, ever vote for John McCain. They use derogatory terms like "McLame," "McShamnesty," and "Juan McShame" ad nauseum. They chide those who endorse John McCain with words like "McCain equals Hillary equals Obama." And yet all of this anger and rage could have been avoided, if only ... Conservatives (and I include myself in this group) had stepped up to the plate a few months sooner.

Yes, I lay the blame for the current state of the GOP squarely at the feet of all these energized Conservatives who are bemoaning John McCain as the GOP nominee. They whine and pout claiming that they have been disenfranchised and that nobody listened to them. Well, it is hard to get people to listen to you when you remain silent.

Why did the GOP Conservative base wait until mid-February to become energized? We had several very good Conservative candidates on our ticket back in December of '07. Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Tommy Thompson. Certainly, any of those three would have been much more palatable than the three choices facing us on Super Tuesday: John McCain, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. So, why wasn't there a rally around the true Conservative candidates back in December?

Well, before you answer that, let me interject that I do not buy the excuse that the media did it. Back in 2000, Conservatives and Republicans bucked the media trend and elected George W. Bush to the White House. These same Conservatives and Republicans bucked an even stronger trend by re-electing him in 2004 despite a concentrated media effort to bring about the opposite result. I refuse to believe that those same Conservatives and Republicans would, in four short years, allow themselves to be led around by the nose. No. Something else is at work here.

Recently, at CPAC, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich made a very profound comment: "There were 14.6 million Democrats who thought the presidential nomination was worth voting for, and there were 8.3 million Republicans on Super Tuesday." That’s a pretty big difference in turn-out; one that cannot be ignored. And that illustrates exactly what I believe the problem with the GOP is: voter apathy.

Many in the GOP like to use words and phrases like "conservative movement" and "base of the Republican Party." Well, where was the "movement" when we still had real Conservatives on the ticket? Where was the "base of the Republican Party" during the campaigns before the Iowa and New Hampshire Primaries? I hate to keep repeating this, but even though I don't know where they were, I do know where they were not: polling and campaigning for Conservative candidates.

I firmly believe that if Conservatives in the GOP had become energized (like they are today with their rage and anger) back on New Year's Day, we'd be looking at a very different candidate picture right now. But that didn't happen. I saw pitifully little support for Conservatives like Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter. Why wasn't there a rally around them prior to Iowa? Did anyone even try? It is as if we Conservatives abandoned this campaign (and the true Conservative candidates) long before there was any abandonment of Conservative ideas within the Party.

Conservatives are trying to paint themselves as victims here, probably because the truth is a little too harsh to accept. We have not been disenfranchised nor have we been pushed out of the GOP. We simply arrived to the party late only to find that all of the best dance partners got tired of waiting for us and left.

If we learn anything from this experience it should be this: don't wait for Iowa to become energized. Next time, hit the ground with both legs already in a full run. But for right now, we need to realistically deal with that which we ourselves caused.

Redemption: McCain At CPAC

I admit, I've been hard on John McCain in this blog. But, can you really blame me?

It is difficult to put trust into someone who doesn't have a track record consistent with their plans. With John McCain, it is diffcult to trust that he will try to make the 2001 Tax Cuts permanent since he originally voted against them. It is difficult to trust that he cares about national security because he favored an open borders policy and amnesty plan. It is difficult to trust that he favors free speech because of McCain-Feingold. It is difficult to trust he would put a Constitutionalist on the Supreme Court because of his involvement with the Gang of 14.

No, I wouldn't blame anyone who was very skeptical of John McCain becoming the de facto leader of the GOP.

Ken Blackwell is taking a look at Sen. John McCain's speech to be given to the Conservatice Political Action Convention (CPAC) today and how it might help or hinder his candidacy. It will all come down to themes and embracing of Republican values for the Senator. But Ken writes something very profound here:

Mr. McCain needs to embrace his own party. He must tell conservatives that he cares about their concerns and that he will fight for these principles. If Mr. McCain does, he may find that there is another value conservatives hold dear: Redemption. If he does not, millions will stay home, even if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton. Disdain for Mrs. Clinton can carry the GOP base only so far. CPAC could not come at a better time for John McCain. He needs to make the most of it.

Exactly! Right on the money!

I've been saying this for a long time. It is for the Party to come back to us, not for us to follow the Party. The question is, can John McCain bring the Party back to us? Will he even try?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Redemption: McCain At CPAC
Ken Blackwell
TownHall.com
February 7, 2008

What Now For Conservatives?

That's a good question. I was watching Glenn Beck last night and he has come to the same conclusion that Michael Savage came to: Republicans have become Democrats and Democrats have become Socialists. I believe that too. John F. Kennedy was further to the right than John McCain is today. The leftward slide of the political scale is undeniable. But, short of just letting the country wallow in an economic hell such as we saw in the late 1970's, what can we do about it?

Well, two columnists, Dan Calabrese and Michelle Malkin, have something to say on this issue.

First From Dan, writing for the North Star Writers Group:

Conservatism is out of favor at the moment not because it is the wrong philosophy of governance. It isn’t. It’s absolutely the right philosophy. It’s out of favor because its leaders have failed to apply it to address the priorities of the nation. I hate to tell you this, but the typical American voter, unlike the typical conservative activist, is not sitting around cursing illegal immigrants, gay marriage, abortionists, left-wing media bias and gun control. Nor is the typical American sitting around wallowing in Ronald Reagan nostalgia. Most Americans’ priorities are decidedly non-ideological. Will I have my job? Can I pay my mortgage and my grocery bill? Are my kids safe? Is the country safe? Will I be able to get health care if I need it?

Dan's point is that we have lost sight of what we should be doing. It is not that we need a Conservative in power. It is that we need to address the current crop of problems with Conservative ideas.

Dan goes on:

These were the needs of the nation in 1980. Reagan didn’t go around saying, “Elect me because I’m conservative.” He convinced voters he understood the priorities of that particular time, and he convinced them he would do what he said he would do. And with the exception of cutting spending, he did. That’s why he won, and that’s why he’s now an icon. He applied conservative thinking to the problems of the day, developed solutions and convinced people he was the man to achieve the solutions.

And we Conservatives forgot about that. Instead of looking towards real Conservative thinkers like Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson, we got bogged down in arguments like who was most electable and who was most likely to defeat Hillary. Because we took our eyes off of the true goal, we got lost and encountered obstacles. We will now have another four years to contemplate this before we can try again.

Dan's conclusion:

A conservative who connects with people on the things they care about, and explains why each can and should be addressed by a conservative answer, can win. But it’s the substance of the answer that matters, not the conservative label. ... The right solutions are conservative ones. There’s no question about that. But with most of the stuff conservatives have been talking about lately, would it really be a surprise if the electorate doesn’t know that?

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Ask Rush Limbaugh If Conservatism Cares About America
Dan Calabrese
North Star Writers Group
February 7, 2008

And Michelle Malkin makes a similar statement with her most recent column. Instead of sitting around bewildered by the fact that John McCain is the GOP frontrunner, we can get motivated and still have a major impact no matter who is in the White House.

From Michelle's column:

Dissatisfied with the flawed crop of GOP candidates who lacked the energy, organizational skills, and ideological strength to carry the conservative banner and ignite your passions? Then pay attention to the next generation of Republican state legislators who do vote consistently to lower your taxes, uphold the sanctity of life, defend marriage, and cut government spending. Support their re-election bids. Reward them for standing with you instead of their Democrat opponents and the liberal media. ... If you can't stomach John McCain, channel your support and energies to Republicans who do represent your values and who have treated the conservative base as allies instead of enemies. There are a new generation of combat veterans running for office who haven't made a career of trashing the base. Check out staunch economic, social, and national security conservative congressional candidates like Iraq/Afghanistan veteran Eric Egland in California's fourth district. Check out the Vets for Freedom (Vets For Freedom) group for their endorsements. Opposed to the amnesty bill? Republican Sens. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and John Cornyn of Texas all fought the McCain-Kennedy-Graham-Martinez-Bush open-borders disaster. All of those Senators are up for re-election this year. Send them some money. Then send a few more bucks to the enforcement proponents on the House side as well. Don't sit and wait for the fence to get built. It won't be finished under the Bush administration or a McCain administration or an Obama or Hillary Clinton administration. What you can do is pressure mayors and police chiefs and city councils to rescind dangerous sanctuary policies. What you can do is alert county sheriffs that you want them to work with the feds to end illegal alien catch-and-release policies in your neighborhood.. What you can do is stop patronizing businesses that you know are knowingly employing illegal immigrants using fake Ids and stolen Social Security numbers.

Yes, we can still be active and we can still make a difference. I will continue posting on this blog in the hopes that other like-minded Conservatives will read it and then discuss these ideas with other people.

I won't give up.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Quo Vadis, Conservatives?
Michelle Malkin
TownHall.com
February 7, 2008

DeMint: Real Change Requires Principled Conservatives

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has put pen to paper in an effort to remind Conservatives of what we are about and what we should expect from those in leadership positions. What policies we should be pursuing and what issues he and other Conservatives are going to push on our behalf. Personally, I say: "Good luck! You're gonna need it!"

From Town Hall:

As a Senate conservative, I will work with my colleagues to put forth principled conservative ideas for action in Congress. ... The biggest issue on the minds of most Americans right now is our economy. And one of the top problems with our economy is out of control Federal spending. We are 17 trillion dollars in debt, and much of that debt is held by foreign nations such as China. Reform is needed. We will propose a balanced budget amendment, to make sure we do not spend more than we take in. This amendment will make it harder for politicians to raise the taxes of Americans by requiring a supermajority vote in Congress. We will also provide a comprehensive global competitiveness program to bring back companies and jobs which have gone overseas. The job losses we have seen are not the fault of the American worker, they are the fault of Washington politicians who see their mission to tax, regulate, and harass businesses until they finally move overseas. Liberals prefer to complain about the jobs that have left. Conservatives will fight to get them back, by lowering taxes on American companies, cutting red tape, and providing other reforms that create a business environment that becomes a global magnet for high quality jobs.

FairTax anyone?

Mr. DeMint continues:

We must secure our border and enforce our immigration laws, without providing amnesty for illegal aliens. We will offer legislation to fund the entire border fence, increase the number of border patrol agents and provide our law enforcement the tools to enforce our immigration laws. We must reform the way Washington spends your money. Last year, Congress passed an appropriations bill that was approximately 2 feet tall, 3,417 pages long, contained an estimated 9,170 earmarks, with no debate and only 46 hours and 8 minutes to read the bill. The system is a national disgrace. I commend the President for moving the ball forward on this issue. Conservatives in the Senate will carry the President’s call for reform by putting forth earmark reform legislation to provide transparency, disclosure, and reduction of wasteful earmarks.

Of course, the Republicans could have done that any time between 2002 and 2006 when they held both the House and Senate. It wasn't until they realized that the base was feeling disenfranchised (i.e. after the disaster of November 2006) that they began listening to us. The problem is, I can't be sure if they are listening right now.

And If I remember right, the Democrats promised to reform earmarks during the 2006 mid-term campaign. Looks like the Dems are going to have some splainin' to do.

On other issues:

We will also propose fundamental tax reform. In the short term, we must support the President’s call to make the tax cuts permanent. We will also put forth a proposal to give all taxpayers the option of a flat tax. You can stay in the current system, or you can choose a flat tax with no deductions. It’s up to you, the taxpayer. In the long term, we want to scrap the current tax code altogether because it is loaded with special interest giveaways, loopholes, and complicated hidden taxes. It is time to move to a fair system that taxpayers can understand. At the same time, we must deal with our entitlement system, which is in serious financial trouble. The first step to reforming Social Security is to stop the raid. The Social Security Trust Fund should have a massive surplus of funds paid by workers for their retirement. But, every year, Congress raids the trust fund to pay for wasteful spending and earmarks. If a business did this, they would be prosecuted. When politicians do it, they get re-elected. The public is starting to wake up to these accounting tricks, and with your help we will end them.

Again, I have to ask. Why wasn't this done between 2002 and 2006? Did it take what President Bush called a "thumpin'" to finally wake you people up?

And this:

We must provide free market health care options for all Americans. ... Today, too many of our education dollars are being wasted on meddlesome bureaucrats in Washington who provide no added value to local schools. We will provide education reform to give flexibility to states and localities, eliminate burdensome regulations, and ensure that nearly all of our Federal education funds are being spent in the classroom, and decisions are being made by school boards, teachers, and parents – not politicians and bureaucrats. We will also reform the corrupt and ineffective bureaucracy known as the United Nations. American taxpayers pay the largest contribution to the UN, and what do we get for it? We must refuse to continue sending billions of taxpayer dollars to the UN until it reforms the way it does business.

Well, good luck, Mr. DeMint. Those are some very lofty goals, but we need to clean house first. We need to get the "Good Ol' Boys" out of Congressional leadership positions and put new, younger blood in their place. Personally, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

But you did write a good column. Too bad you are preaching to the choir.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Real Change Requires Principled Conservative Leadership
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC)
TownHall.com
January 29, 2008

Social Conservatives 'Mad As Hell' And Congress Gets An 'F'

If you are anything like me (and the fact that you are coming here and reading this blog usually means that you are, at least, a little like me) then you have been watching the GOP primary and seeing the front-runners go up and down like yo-yos. Not a very promising start to the 2008 campaign season, but at least it is entertaining.

That is where the positive spin ends. The GOP has a real problem, one that it has ignored for far too long. Paul Edwards' latest column explains what this problem is. There is a schism within the ranks of the GOP and no one seems willing to admit it or to do anything about it. But really, what can be done?

We are stuck between giving up our priciples in order to maintain a good economic status or giving up our fiscal beliefs in order to see our social ideas have a chance. Why can't we have both?

Edwards writes:

The Republican establishment has looked down its nose at social conservatives far too long, tolerating us because they need our votes. But now the tables are turned. The grass roots are looking up at the establishment with the will of a Lech Walesa, demanding that fiscal issues take a back seat to moral issues for a change. It’s long past time for the moral and social issues of our times to be given more than just lip service. It’s now time for our fiscal policies to be informed by our social policies rather than sacrificing our morality to our economic standing in the world. Don’t expect the Republican establishment to take this lying down. The New Media tanks are already rolling in to suppress the revolt.

So, which candidate is going to take advantage of this? I don't know. I just know that whomever follows the philosophies of the Republican Party most closely should win:

I'm a Republican Because... I BELIEVE the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person’s dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored. I BELIEVE in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability. I BELIEVE free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity. I BELIEVE government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn. I BELIEVE the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations, and that the best government is that which governs least. I BELIEVE the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people. I BELIEVE Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times. I BELIEVE Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world. FINALLY, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles of government.

You can access Mr. Edwards' complete column on-line here:

Social Conservatives Are “Mad As Hell”
Paul Edwards
TownHall.com
December 25, 2007

---

And now that the end of the year is close at hand, we can look back at what our Democrat controlled Congress has done and effectively grade them.

Here is what Jennifer Rubin has to say over at Human Events Online:

The Democrats in Congress, despite a year in the majority and facing a president whose approval ratings are historically low, have been spectacularly unsuccessful in achieving items both small and large on their agenda. A combination of overreaching and incompetence on their part and savvy prevent defense by President Bush and Congressional Republicans has spared the country untold grief. Most striking was the Democrats utter failure to live up to the key promise of their 2006 campaign: “ending the war in Iraq.” First, the Senate unanimously confirmed General Petreaus (who had committed to a Surge strategy) by an 81-0 vote in late January. Despite more than 60 votes to withdrawal or limit U.S. forces in Iraq, Democrats could not win a veto proof majority to begin retreat in Iraq. This included a 108-day fight over the Defense Department Supplemental spending bill. Although the demise of the “Surge” policy was widely anticipated in September, testimony by General Petreaus and Ambassador Croker shifted the tide -- with help from a backlash over the ludicrous and outlandish MoveOn.org attack on General Petreaus -- and drowned out Democrats demands that U.S. forces close up shop. ... Democrats also failed on other priorities held dear: federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, elimination of secret ballots for union elections, hate crime legislation protecting homosexuals (tucked into a defense authorization bill), voting rights for the District of Columbia, and government price setting for Medicare drugs. Even the pettiest of goals --working five days a week -- could not be achieved. On the SCHIP -- the Dems’ plan for a first middle-class entitlement program -- President Bush and Congressional Republican stared down the Democrats’ threats to expand this poverty program to millions of middle class Americans, not just the “children” that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid paraded before the cameras. On immigration after the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill failed Democrats could not even achieve victory on a more limited measure --yes, for the “children” -- the DREAM Act. They likewise failed to pass a separate immigration bill for agriculture. Although Democrats swore that hard line Republican views on immigration were a losing proposition and contributed to GOP losses in 2006, they had no stomach after the immigration fight for any more immigration “reform.” (“Blue Dog” Democrat Heath Shuler, who apparently learned a different lesson, did introduce an enforcement only measure which quickly gathered over a hundred co-sponsors.) ... Democrats got an energy bill, but not the one they envisioned. In June and again this month Republicans refused to agree to a bill that would have resulted in millions in new taxes for energy companies. Republican also achieved outright wins: a seven year extension of the internet tax ban and utter rejection of Charlie Rangel’s “mother of all tax bills” (which never received so much as a committee vote) that would have “solved” the alternative minimum tax issue by raising billions in new taxes. Democrats cherished “Pay Go” (their self imposed rule that all tax reductions must be “paid for”) just went.

And why did all of this happen?

First, the Democrats badly misinterpreted the results of the 2006 election. Had the vast majority of the country wanted amnesty, defeat in Iraq, socialized medicine and the like, the elected representatives in Congress on both sides of the aisle would have felt the heat and voted accordingly. Second, divided government may be a powerful argument for the GOP presidential nominee. If it were not for the presidential veto -- actual or threatened -- much of the Democratic agenda could well have slipped through. The GOP nominee will be greatly aided by a simple argument: “Do you want Nancy and Harry to have their way?” Finally, Republicans do best when they do not “split the baby” (e.g. give Rangel half of his tax increases) but instead say “no” and force Democrats to vote on measures unpalatable to most voters. In that regard, 2006 may have made 2008 a far easier year -- provided Republicans stick to their guns for one more year.

You can access Jennifer's complete column on-line here:

Democrats' 2007 Report Card
Jennifer Rubin
Human Events Online
December 21, 2007

And more evidence of a deserved 'F' comes from the Associated Press:

President Bush, successful in forcing the Democratic Congress to bend to his will, complained Thursday that lawmakers had wasted time and taxpayers' money. His aggressive stand set a confrontational tone for Bush's final year in the White House. Bush used a year-end news conference to scold lawmakers for stuffing 9,800 special-interest projects into a $550 billion spending measure. He directed his budget director to explore how to erase what Bush considers wasteful spending. What began as a troubling year for Bush, facing a new, energetic Democratic Congress, ended in triumph for the president as frustrated Democrats nursed their losses. Democrats failed in their No. 1 objective to stop the war in Iraq and bowed to Bush and his veto threats on tax policies, energy legislation, children's health insurance and general spending.

I seem to recall the Dems claiming back in 2004 and later on that President Bush was "stupid" or "dumb" or "not intelligent enough" for the Presidency.

Well, maybe someone should add up the collective IQs of the Dems in Congress and compare it to the IQ of President Bush, and then answer why the Dems lost so many intellectual fights.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Bush Says Congress Wasting Time, Money
Terrence Hunt
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
December 21, 2007