“Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation” -James Madison

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Yeah, we'll show THEM!!!!

Some conservatives are falling prey to the media machine that is gleefully predicting the blue wave overtaking Congress in three weeks. In monitoring conservative websites and talk radio, I have heard and read a disconcerting number of responses that advocate sitting out this election in order to "teach the Republicans a lesson" and that being back in the wilderness for awhile will help galvanize "real" conservatives to nominate and elect better candidates.


Do a quick memory check of 1992. Conservatives were understandably dismayed by many facets of Poppy Bush' administration. The good feelings from the Gulf War had faded, the president had backtracked on the now-infamous "Read My Lips" pledge and raised taxes; the 1991 recession was falling on his shoulders; he was responsible for appointing David Souter to the Supreme Court (and also Clarence Thomas, I might add); most of all the elder Bush seemed very disengaged from the lives of everyday citizens-- in addition to an apparent disinterest in domestic affairs, a series of well-publicized gaffes such as the fascination the President showed for an infrared scanner at a grocery store combined to paint a picture of an elitist who had already had his high points and was wilting before our very eyes. He even had his own quirks of vocabulary and speaking style as famously portrayed by comedian Dana Carvey. "Not gonna do it" and "Thousand points of light" trigger specific images and memories.

The result was a disheartened conservative base. There just was not a lot of excitement or passion to put the guy back on the throne again; in fact, *HE* didn't even really seem to care whether he won or not. Many conservatives decided to sit out the election either from boredom or disgust with a man who was Ronaldus Magnus' second-in-command and heir apparent. When the prince turned out to be a RINO who was unable or unwilling to fight the Democratic-held Congress to any degree of effectiveness, the base decided to teach him and all the other spineless Republicans a lesson.

The election season running up to November 1992 saw the entrance of a little-known governor from Arkansas who had learned that hiding his liberalism was the path to national power, and Bill Clinton showed a very warm and human candidate as opposed to the blueblood elitist in charge at the time.

That season also saw the entrance of Ross Perot, who captured the third-party rebellious fever that was not being satisfied in the hearts and minds of many conservatives. His over-the-top act was the conservative version of Howard Dean, and he was able to garner enthusiasm and votes from conservatives and libertarians. Or course, he never had a chance, but neither he nor his devout followers ever really saw that. Secondarily they did not take into account that the votes Ross would get might well have gone to George H. W. Bush, or if they did then it was a decidedly punitive action and they "would show him". In the end this candidacy did not truly have an impact -- Perot's votes were largely protest votes split evenly between Bush and Clinton, and even if Bush had taken all of Perot's votes it still would have left him short in the Electoral College. The most important aspect of Perot in the race was the media attention on his novelty campaign. This column does not suggest that Perot cost Bush the presidency.

That election saw Clinton eke out a victory with 43% of the popular vote but a commanding 370 electoral votes compared to Bush' 168. It was hardly a mandate, but it was a national decision. The people no longer wanted the elder Bush to be their president; they weren't sure they wanted Clinton but they knew they wanted Bush gone.

The conservatives felt betrayed in 1992 and voted with their feet; that is, they largely stayed home on election day and a few misguided rebels cast their lot with Perot. Many conservatives commented that it was time to teach the Republicans how to be conservative again, and that a little time out of power would do them some good. They *DESERVED* to lose.

But did the rest of us deserve to lose? With the Clinton presidency we were treated to decisions such as the appointments of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court, along with many hundreds of liberal activist judges at all levels of state and circuit courts. We were perilously close to having 11% of our economy nationalized into the HillaryCare healthcare scheme. We watched as the fiasco at Waco unfolded directly due to incompetence at the upper levels of the Justice department. We saw the first bombing of the World Trade Center and various other terrorist attacks on US interests and assets around the world for the next 8 years. We got tax increases and increased regulation of business and environmental interests. We stood idly by while Iraq armed itself, and then we actively helped North Korea develop rudimentary nuclear techniques. We gave China the ability to accurately shoot a ballistic missile. We got a First Lady who is now a New York senator and probable presidential candidate who is cut straight out of the Marxist/Leninist mold. We got a depleted and dispirited military that was forced to be a social experimental lab vis a vis gays and women.

Does anyone have any belief that Poppy Bush would have sat idly by when the WTC was bombed the first time? Or the embassy bombings in Kenya, or Black Hawk Down? How about the Cole? Of course, he would not have been president after 1996 due to term limits but it is reasonable that a conservative could have won that election. Many of the terror elements may not have happened if a president Bush the Elder goes on the attack after WTC I.

The Republicans didn't do much better 1996. Sad-sack Bob Dole was the sacrificial lamb since it was "his turn" and "he had earned" the opportunity. The conservatives were down and despite retaking the House in 1994, simply didn't buy into the larger ideal and put up an effective challenge to Clinton's re-election campaign. Perot ran again but it was even more pathetic than the first time. Clinton steamrolled them both and got four more years to do his best to enforce a Socialist/humanist take on the American landscape.

By 2000 the Dems made their own mistake in giving Gore his shot, and Bush the Younger was just conservative enough (and Gore scarily liberal enough) to energize conservatives again.

But in 1992 conservatives set out to teach a lesson and to show the Republicans in Washington that we didn't have to vote for them. They lost, and we lost even more. That folly was compounded in 1996, and we paid a grievous price on 9/11/2001.

I understand that conservatives are loathe to "reward" a RINO or misbehaving Republican with re-election. But this is not a ballgame -- by withholding votes from Republicans and costing them seats and possibly control of a chamber, we are effectively giving the other side homefield advantage for the entire next season.

There are plenty of issues that have not been properly addressed according to conservatives -- border control and immigration, permanent tax cuts, SocSec reform, the passing of McCain-Feingold, wishy-washy foreign policy, and many other issues. The situation is decidedly non-ideal.

Some would decide that our current leadership does not deserve any more time at the trough and are planning to stay home on election day or vote 3rd party.

If that happens, we *ALL* lose, not just the Republicans. No lessons will be learned, and we will be in for years of something much worse than NON-IDEAL. It will be catastrophic, and we will all wish that we could simply get back to non-ideal. There are times when it *IS* enough to vote for Republicans simply because they are not Democrats, and we are living in one at this moment.

The theme of many of my posts makes a return here: the time for ideals has passed along with the primaries. At this point the only rational option is to go out to your polling place November 7 and pull the lever for the candidate (for national office) with the "R" by his or her name. Even if that person is a raging RINO, that candidate is still FAR more in line with conservative beliefs than anyone with a "D" by their name, and they do count towards numerical control of their chamber. They also determine the makeup of the committees and chairs, and their party will determine the voting schedule. At this point the focus is on concentration of party power. The Republicans MUST hold both chambers of Congress. To withhold a vote at this point or to protest-vote is to be the same person who gave us the Clinton presidency in 1992.

Who exactly is showing whom? And what are they showing them?

Monday, October 16, 2006

Wow, so that's all it takes....

According to this, China has begun erecting a fence along its border with North Korea.

Border-fence advocates in the United States are now encouraged to assist Mexico its own nuclear development programs. If all it takes to get a secured border is to provide their corrupt leaders with fissile material and gyroscopes, then we should by all means help them.

After all, no one would ever use these horrible weapons, would they? Really?

Apparently the United States is going to continue to lag behind communist regimes when it comes to security and economy -- see Russia with its flat tax and now China with its strengthened border security against a rogue neighbor.

China gets it, to a degree. Although they are stopping short of yanking the chain back on Kim Jong Il (their own Frankensteinian creation), they foresee a massive flood of refugees in the near future coming from the Paradise That Is North Korea. Famine and poverty continue to flourish and the "leaders" of NoKo continue to take aggressive (and unnecessary) steps toward inevitable confrontation over their precious nuclear weapons program; the UN continues to waffle and issue statements instead of strength; the US continues to work through diplomatic channels. The new Cold War of China vs US has entered a new phase, and China's agent in the matter scares the master as much as it does the opponent. I'm sure SunTzu had something to say on this but I'm too lazy too look it up at the moment.

Yes, China knows that in the next few years they can expect millions of poverty-stricken, diseased, maleducated foreigners into their territory that they will have to deal with in some manner. They have decided to limit this in advance.

We, of course, allow our own "guests" to get college admission at prices that Americans cannot, issue them ID and look the other way as they vote themselves more benefits, and wreck our institutions of healthcare, education, social welfare, and housing development.

Who is winning here?

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

I'll Tell You Why

Redstate had a contest (which I missed out on -- darn work getting in the way of blogging!) in which they challenged readers to tell in 100 words or less, Why You Should Vote Republican in 2006. So here's my take:

Primaries are where ideals battle; general elections are about concentration of party power. In the end it is a zero-sum game; SOMEONE will win every election for every office, either a Republican or a Democrat, and most likely not ideal. To allow that seat, and possibly control of that chamber, to fall into the hands of the Socialist Democrats is unacceptable. Republicans aren't perfect, but there is no rational practical alternative at this time. The dems cannot be trusted with security, taxes, borders, or war. Don't think of it as rewarding RINOs; rather see it as limiting the damage.

heh -- 99 words.....

To paraphrase South Park's co-creator Matt Stone, I hate conservatives but I hate liberals even more. Let's face it -- there is no one party out there that makes everyone happy with every position. This causes a cessation of interest in many. That interest is further corroded by seeing the antics of members of both parties once they have get a taste of the power. Combined with a complete lack of fiscal control and utter disregard for constituents, both major parties begin to blur together and the average guy doesn't see a point to voting at all.

But looking at the underlying philosophy of each party yields sharp contrast. The conservative movement as currently embodied by the Republicans is largely about patriotism, family, duty, self-reliance, and responsibility. The liberal movement as currently embodied by the Democrats is very Socialistic, relying on big-government solutions, high taxes, personal release from societal norms, and dissolution of traditional societal structures in favor of a new humanistic view.

Both positions are fine -- it is a matter of the individual to determine which course (given ideal conditions and execution) would be the preferred form of national government. The recent decay of the Democrats into the world of the far-left has diluted their importance and viability as an option to the Republicans. An incoherent and irrational party that does not accept the basic premises our nation faces, simply cannot be trusted with power. The Reps have squandered a great deal of goodwill and political capital, but not nearly badly enough for people to legitimately look to the Dems as an alternative.

The Republicans' worst fault is that they don't follow through on their promises. The Democrats' worst fault is that they do.

Do not stay at home on election day, no matter what you think about Foley or borders or SocSec/taxes. Do not punish yourself and the rest of us by giving a tacit approval to the dem candidate of any national seat. Although it might do the Reps some good to sit out for awhile, we do not enjoy an atmosphere where this is acceptable. The primaries are over; you have had your chance to put up an ideal challenger to that despicable RINO infesting your congressional seat, and the RINO won. Too bad. This is the time to go into the booth and pull the lever marked (R).

I wish we had the option to teach some hard lessons. I wish the dems could be a viable opposition threat and could be trusted with power for a few years. I wish we could make the Republicans remember that conservatism wins when it is tried. I wish that voting for a RINO would not be construed as permission for more of the same.

We must keep at least one chamber red, if not both. If the House goes blue, the Beltway will be paralyzed by investigations and likely impeachment proceedings. If the Senate goes blue, conservative judges shouldn't even bother showing up for hearings. If both go blue, Iraq and all other military options are gone. I do not believe that even in the worst case the dems can take enough seats to override presidential vetoes, but it is still a guarantee of paralysis in a time when we can least afford it. Between the looming national security threats of Iran, North Korea, and our own southern border, the looming monetary threats of SocSec and lapsing tax cuts, and the certain retirement of at least 2 SupCourt justices in the next 4 years, we must have a functional and conservative leadership in place in both houses of Congress.

Vote in November, for Republicans. Save the ideals for the next primary and work harder in 2008, 2010, 2012, etc. Ditch the RINO at the primary. Until the dems regain some sanity we cannot allow them to run even the most inoffensive committee, let alone control either chamber.

And that may mean voting for a RINO. Suck it up. Pink may not be red, but it darn sure isn't blue.