Saturday, May 31, 2008

1976 Redux

It feels like 1976 all over again. I remember that year as if it was yesterday. That was the year of the gigantic battle of Ronald Reagan versus President Gerald Ford for the Republican Presidential nomination. And in November, that was the year Jimmy Carter was elected President.

Fast forward to 2008 and there are sharp similarities between the two years. Obviously, they are not exactly alike. For example, the GOP Presidential nomination was decided in February when Sen. John McCain came out on top in the primaries.

But the similarities are eerie. First, the incumbent Republican President was very unpopular. Ford was unpopular because of the deep recession and pardoning ex-President Richard Nixon. President Bush is unpopular because of the economy and the war in Iraq.

Second, the United States faced implacable foreign foes. In 1976, the U.S. faced Communism as its foe. In 2008, it is Islamic terrorism.

Third, the U.S. economy is in poor shape. In 1976, the U.S. was coming out of a deep recession and high unemployment. In 2008, the U.S. is going through a mortgage crisis, high gas prices and a sharp increase in food prices.

Fourth, movement conservative ennui. After Reagan lost in 1976, movement conservatives sat on their hands and refused to help Ford. Many of us just took a political vacation. I voted in the general election, but that was it. There were only fourteen of us working in the Reagan Presidential campaign in the Alachua County (Gainesville), Florida Reagan headquarters. The fourteen of us made over 40000 telephone calls in six weeks and heavily canvassed the area. Reagan took a surprisingly high 41% of the vote in the guts of liberal territory. But the primary was very bitter. Young Republican meetings turned into brawls. Indeed, the police had to watch over our meetings because of the bitter fighting. Friendships were destroyed. I know of one Reaganite who broke off his engagement because his girlfriend was actively working for Ford. Many of us felt Carter would be a failure and then in 1980 Reagan would be elected. So we decided to sit out the race and let the Democrats win.

Republican establishment critters like the glory and glitz of politics, but they do not like the nitty gritty of campaigning. Doing the "boiler room" work is not fun. You make calls (I wonder how that works with the proliferation of cell phones in today's society.), stuff envelopes, drive workers to the polls, canvass door-to-door, put literature on cars in shopping parking lots, etc. You won't see establishment types do that. But movement conservatives have done all that and then some (I personally made thousands of calls for Reagan in that very bitter Florida primary.).
John McCain inspires no movement conservatives. Our attitude is let him lose and wait until 2012.

Fifth, the GOP is very unpopular. In 1976, only 25% of the voters identified with the GOP. In 2008, it's not as low. But it has declined since 2004. Just like the Republicans were dejected in 1976 (You could smell defeat in the air after Reagan lost to Ford.), so are they in 2008. I have met very few Republicans who are enthusiastic this year. The church I attend is very conservative and Republican. I have yet to find one person who is enthusiastic about McCain. Most of them will give them a very reluctant vote. But unlike 2004, some will sit out the election or vote third-party.

Sixth, conservatism is at a hiatus. After Reagan was defeated in 1976, the conservative movement was in limbo for a few years. Ford was a moderate squish who had no political philosophy at all. In 1980, conservatives came up with a winning platform. In 2008, conservatism has no message. The message, "we can do better than the Democrats", does not resonate with the average voter. If the GOP is going to be Democrat-lite, then why not vote for the real thing? If the Democrats win the White House, conservatives will have to come up with a coherent strategy to meet economic and foreign policy challenges.

Seventh, an outsider was elected. Nobody ever heard of Jimmy Carter when he began running except for Georgians (the state, not the country) and political junkies. But he ran on a platform of bringing back trust to the White House. He was inexperienced, serving four years as a state senator and four years as governor. Barack Obama will probably be elected. His experience is serving eight years as a state senator and four years as U.S. Senator. Like Carter, he has very little experience.

Eighth, the Democrats won the Presidency by a very narrow margin. Carter was elected with just over 50% of the vote. Obama will probably win by a narrow margin. Carter started with a huge 34-point lead over Ford and was poised to win all fifty states when the campaign began. As it turned out, he won the Electoral College 297-241. Obama will probably start with a big lead against McCain, but will probably win by a narrow margin.

Politics is strange and history often repeats itself. 2008 seems like 1976 redux.

Monday, May 26, 2008

The Teenage Itch

Every sixteen years (hence, the "teenage" term) since 1944 the American electorate has gone through the mantra of "change." The strong desire for change came in the 1960, 1976, and the 1992 elections. And the desire for change is very strong in 2008. There are similarities in all
these four elections and I will point them out in a very long post. Here goes.

1. All those elected in 1960, 1976 and 1992 were Democrats. I don't think 2008 will be any different. John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were elected.

2. All those elected set a precedent. John Kennedy was the first Roman Catholic to be elected President. Jimmy Carter was the first Deep Southerner to be elected and Bill Clinton was the first out-of-the-Deep-South Southerner to be elected. And it looks like Barack Obama will be the first black elected President.

3. All of them were elected in a time of economic malaise. The 1960 recession helped elect John Kennedy by a very narrow margin. The 1973-1975 recession was quite deep and helped elect Jimmy Carter. The 1990-1991 recession helped elect Bill Clinton. In 2008, there is a lot of economic uncertainty because of high gas prices and rising inflation on food items.

4. The Republican nominees alienated the conservative base and many conservatives did little or sat out the election. When Vice-President Richard Nixon made the agreement with Gov. Nelson Rockefeller on the 1960 Republican Party platform, many conservatives accused Nixon of "selling out" to the liberal Rockefeller. Conservatives called it "The Betrayal of Fifth Avenue." Many conservatives felt betrayed and sat on their hands in the general election.

In 1976, there was a very bitter GOP nomination battle between President Ford and Ronald Reagan (I was there. I can tell you thirty-two years later the bitterness is STILL there. It was the nastiest campaign I've ever been in. I put in mounds of hours for Reagan. Indeed, I kept a diary of that campaign.). Ford won, but conservatives refused to help him.

In 1992, conservatives were fed up with President George H.W. Bush. When he betrayed his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge in 1990, conservatives abandoned Bush. Commentator Pat Buchanan ran against him and hurt Bush in the primaries. In the general election, many of us conservatives sat out the race or voted for Perot.

Fast forward to 2008. Sen. John McCain is an embarrassment to all conservatives. For twenty years he has spat in our faces and rubbed the spittle on our cheeks. He wants open borders, tight environmental controls, tax increases and moderate judges. Many of us voted for Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul. When they all faltered, many conservatives switched to Mitt Romney. McCain's "divide and conquer" strategy to split the conservative support and votes worked like a charm. I'll vote for Bob Barr or Charles Baldwin before I vote for McCain.

5. The Democratic victories were narrow victories. John Kennedy won the popular vote by 112803 votes out of 68.8 million. Jimmy Carter won with 50.9% of the vote. Bill Clinton won with 43% of the vote. Obama will win, but it will be with 51% to 52% of the vote.

6. The Democrats made major gains in the prior off-year elections. In 1958, the Democrats gained 13 Senate seats and 48 House seats. In 1974, the Democrats gained five Senate seats and 47 House seats. In 1990, the GOP was expected to pick up some Senate seats. Instead, they lost a Senate seat and nine House seats. But they got creamed in the governors' races. In 2006, the Democrats gained six Senate seats and 35 House seats.

7. The cry for change was overwhelming. In 1960, the mantra was "Time for a Change." John Kennedy campaigned against the GOP's three recessions in eight years (with the 1957-1958 being a crushing recession). In 1976, the cry was for honesty in government because of Watergate. Jimmy Carter preened he would never lie to the American people and would have a government as "good as the American people." He would be an outsider that would change Washington, D.C. In 1992, Clinton railed against "the worst economy in sixty years." He would change that by giving a big middle-class tax cut (instead, he raised taxes). In 2008, Obama's mantra is "Change we can believe in."

8. The Republicans had governed for at least eight years. Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower was President from 1953 to 1961, Republicans Nixon and Ford were Presidents from 1969 to 1977 and Republicans Ronald W. Reagan and Bush 41 were Presidents from 1981 to 1993. President Bush has been President from 2001 and it'll be eight years when he leaves next year.

9. Voter approval of the GOP hit bottoms. In 1960, people were disgusted with the GOP because of the recession and Russian gains in foreign policy. While Eisenhower was personally popular, his party had low approval ratings. In 1976, Ford had low approval ratings because of his wanting to raise taxes in 1974 to fight a recession (Remember, the WIN buttons the White House put out in 1974?) and pardoning Nixon. In 1992, Bush had low approval ratings because of his indifference towards the economy during the recession (He had never seen a checkout scanner before.). In 2008, Bush's approval ratings are in the low 30s or upper 20s. People have soured on the War in Iraq and the high gas prices.

History is a very stern teacher. It looks like the GOP will learn its lesson for abandoning conservative principles and acting like Democrats-lite. Mark my words: The Democrats will win the White House in 2008 by a narrow margin.

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Do NOT Vote for John McCain

I get tired of the old cliche' that you must vote "for the lesser of two evils." If you vote for a lesser evil, you are still voting for evil. I've been told many a time if you vote for a third-party candidate, you are throwing away your vote. Maybe so, but at least it's a vote based on principle and not on expediency.

Senator John McCain would be the biggest disaster to befall the Republican Party and the conservative movement should he be elected President. If you think the 2008 election is going to be a nightmare for the GOP, the 2010 off-year elections would be a total disaster. The conservative movement would be in exile for at least twenty years if he is President.

McCain would be a disaster as President. Let's look on how liberal he is on the issues even though he preens himself as a conservative.

1. Taxes. He voted AGAINST both of President Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. He has never been a supporter of tax cuts. Indeed, look for him to "reach across the aisle" and find ways to increase taxes.

2. Iraq. He's gung-ho for the stupid, idiotic war which has cost this nation 4077 lives and 30004 wounded. We'll be there for at least four more years and more dead and wounded. He has no plans of getting us out of that ridiculous war.

3. The Environment. His speech in Portland, Oregon was something out of the liberal Sierra Club playbook. He's bought into the global warming nuttiness and is all set to lower our standard of living to appease the environmental wackos. In fact, there has been a global COOLING in the last ten years. And wasn't it just thirty years ago we were talking about a global ice age?

4. Abortion. John McCain has no use for the pro-life movement and would sell the movement out in a heartbeat. In private, he has complained about the prolifers and has no use for them. He will not be a prolife President and would betray the prolife cause.

5. Judicial Appointments. Do you think he's going to appoint conservative judges? Not a snowball's chance. He said Judge Alito is "too conservative" for him. He said that Roe v. Wade should remain law. And do you think he'd appoint judges who would overturn the McCain-Feingold Campaign Law, a stupid law which limits free speech and caused the proliferation of 527 organizations?

6. The North American Union. He has said some very positive things about a North American Union, which would put Canada, the US and Mexico as one entity. This would undermine American sovereignty and reduce the rights of all American citizens.

7. Iran. He sang a ditty to the tune of "Barbara Ann" as "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." That's just what we need: Another war with a Middle East nation. He strikes me as a hothead who would not be afraid to go to war at the slightest incident.

8. Immigration. He would be gung-ho for giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. He has no plan to stop illegal immigration and will continue the heavy influx of illegal immigrants coming to this country. I have nothing against legal immigrants. Let them come. But why should those who break the law be rewarded with amnesty?

9. The Economy. He will have a lot more government intervention in the economy. Whenever the government gets involved, the economy suffers. His "economic reforms" may put this country in a deep recession.

10. The Patriot Act. Look for him to add more provisions to the Patriot Act which would diminish our civil liberties.

I'd rather have Obama than McCain. At least I KNOW Obama is a liberal. His voting record and his pronouncements show that. Well, I don't like it but at least I know he's forthright about it. We conservatives will have to hunker down for two years and come up with an alternative program. McCain says he's a conservative but he's lying through his teeth. The problem is the voters will believe him and punish the conservative movement when his administration fails (which it will).

Let Obama win. Let the American people have a real solid dose of unadulterated liberalism. Let the GOP go in the political wilderness for two to four years. It would serve them right. The GOP does not have any conservative principles. In fact, the GOP doesn't know what it stands for. Let them get a whipping this year. Let the voters kick them solidly in the teeth. One of the GOP Party leaders said the GOP must "accessorize." What does THAT mean? Dress up in drag? Men carrying a purse? The GOP is a gutless party that stands for nothing. The GOP is crying about losing that Congressional seat in north Mississippi. Tough toenails. This is a gutless, cowardly, scum-sucking, yellow-bellied party that doesn't stand for anything. Maybe a shellacking will give them some backbone and the guts to come up with ideas to reduce government. Maybe they'll stand for something.

As for Obama, he is Jimmy Carter redux. His administration will be one of the most disastrous administrations since Jimmah's. You can count on a deep recession and stagflation. You think Bill Clinton was liberal on social issues? Clinton will look like Lou Sheldon compared to Obama. On foreign policy, he will be a weakling. The Russians (Yes, Putin is becoming a lot more aggressive in foreign policy.) and Muslims will take advantage of his weak policies. And if you think gas is expensive now, it'll be worse under Obama.

As for me, I'm debating voting for Libertarian Bob Barr (although he hasn't received the nomination, he is the favorite) or Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party. I know I'm wasting my vote. But Barr and Baldwin have principles and have the courage to stand up for them. They are conservatives and will not back down on their principles. And if the GOP loses because these two candidates drain enough votes to give Obama the victory, then that's just tough.

Screw McCain and the Republican Party.

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Why Charlie Ross Lost His Race for Congress

It has been over a month since Charlie Ross lost his race for Congress. I was so busy with tax season that I had no chance to write as to the reasons for his loss. After tax season, I did some extensive work in asking people why they didn't vote for Ross. After putting all the data together, here are the reasons he lost:

1. His cold, aloof personality. It was bitterly ironic, but the more people got to know Charlie Ross, the more likely they were to vote for Gregg Harper. Those who never met the candidate voted for him without any question. They liked his service in the Legislature. But those who did know him could not stand him. Some people got downright nasty with me when I told them I was voting for Ross. The ones who knew him described him as "aloof, a snob, know-it-all, cold, imperious, insensitive" and other terms not worthy of mention.

2. The David Landrum voters. Landrum's voters were bitter against Ross for the hit campaign on Landrum's not voting in prior primaries and elections. Actually, it was John Rounsaville who brought that out. But many Landrum supporters think Ross was behind it all. They broke heavily for Harper after the first primary.

3. The Religious Right. They were thirsting for their own and they got it in the person of Gregg Harper. He played the religious card for all he could milk it. Much to Ross' credit, he refused to play the church game to get votes. He said he was not going to use church to further his political campaign. You could see Harper schmoozing to those pastors so he could get Religious Right votes. I was nauseated by Harper's bringing up what a wonderful Christian he was and how he would have a "servant attitude" if he were in Congress. But this district is rife with the Religious Right and they swallowed Harper's religiosity hook, line and sinker.

4. Phil Bryant. Now Charlie Ross may claim Phil Bryant is his friend (With friends like that, who needs enemies?), but that is wishful thinking. I found out Bryant was going all-out to defeat Ross. Bryant is a lowlife who holds grudges until the end of time. I was told Bryant was very bitter against Ross for Ross' "mudslinging" (i.e., that's a Bryant code term for telling the truth) during the raucous GOP primary for Lt. Governor last year. He vowed revenge. His financial backer, Billy Powell, was working hard and raising money for Harper. (Politics makes very strange bedfellows. Billy Powell worked hard to defeat a pro-life plank in the Rankin County GOP platform back in 1990, but that didn't stop him from backing a very strong pro-lifer such as Harper.) Phil Bryant made it known he was after Ross and encouraged his supporters to vote for Harper. If Satan had been in the runoff against Ross, Bryant would be holding Satanic ceremonies. That's how bitter Bryant was against Ross. (And believe me, Bryant can be a very vindictive scumbag.)

5. Ross fatigue. When Ross decided to run for Congress, I had a lot of my friends tell me, "You mean to tell me he's running again? He just lost his race for Lt. Governor." They got tired of his puss on the tube again. They wanted a fresh face. If Landrum hadn't blown that voting controversy, he would have made it to the runoff and defeated Ross. Instead, they voted for the vacuous Harper.

I had a friend call me up on Election Day inviting me to the victory party. I asked him how the race looked since he was hot and heavy working for Ross. Much to my shock, he told me it didn't look good and Ross was going to lose. He was right, with Ross getting an anemic 41% of the vote. He should have easily been elected. He was clearly the most qualified person to run for Congress in the district since Sonny Montgomery.

Ross may try another run for political office in 2011 or even later. But don't count on his winning. With Phil Bryant and his toadies bitterly fighting him every inch of the way, Ross will have an uphill climb. It's a shame, because Ross was perhaps one of the smartest and most productive members in the State Senate.

Saturday, April 26, 2008

The Thrill Is Gone

Today in Rankin County and throughout the rest of the state the Republican Party caucuses were held. At 10AM, you'd meet at your precincts to elect delegates to the county convention. The county convention, which would meet at 3PM, would elect delegates and alternates to the state convention plus elect members to the party executive committee.

I showed up at my precinct at 9:55AM. I waited twenty minutes and nobody else showed up. I elected myself as a delegate to the county convention. I later met a friend and he was the only one to show up at his precinct. He also elected himself as a delegate. But neither one of us decided to go to the county convention.

I just didn't have the ambition to go to the convention. The reason? I no longer care. The thrill is gone. I don't even plan to help the Republican Party one iota this year. So why should I show up for the convention? Why should I work my tush off for John McCain when he has betrayed every conservative belief known to the conservative movement? Why should I even VOTE for him when there is not much difference between him and the two Democrats running?

The GOP used to stand for something. During Reagan, it stood for rock-solid conservatism and it had no problems on taking on liberalism. Now, you'd be hard-pressed to tell me the difference between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration when it comes to fiscal and tax policy. Sure, there were differences on the social issues, but that was it. My friends at think Bush is some wild-eyed conservative. Bush is perhaps one of the most liberal Presidents when it comes to spending and foreign adventures. His idiotic war in Iraq is counter to the Old Right Conservative philosophy of foreign entanglements.

My friends at probably think the GOP and conservatism are one and the same. NOT TRUE!!! I was a Republican because I felt the GOP was the only vehicle for conservatism. But after eight years of Bush and six years of a Republican Congress, I found out how untrue that was. It was under Bush and a GOP Congress that we got another drug entitlement. And pork spending reached unprecedented levels.

I get sick and tired of the GOP telling me, "If you don't vote for McCain, you'll have a liberal Democrat in there for four years with a Democratic Congress to run havoc over the nation." Well, so be it. In fact, I'd rather have Obama in the White House than McCain. At least Obama is a flaming liberal and the US will find out what unvarnished liberalism is all about. If they want flaming liberalism, let's give it to the American people. Like Jimmy Carter, there will be such a backlash conservatives will make gains in the off-year elections and the 2012 elections. McCain would be a disaster, but the American people will identify conservatism with the GOP. It would set the conservative movement back a generation if McCain was President.

I have talked to scores of my conservative friends and not one of them is going to lift a finger to help McCain. And most of them will NOT vote for him. So let me tell the GOP this and they better get it through their very thick hides: You may not win with us movement conservatives. 1964 showed that. BUT YOU CANNOT WIN WITHOUT US. 1976, 1992, and 1996 showed that. Indeed, the GOP lost Congress in 2006 because conservatives switched to the Democrats or stayed home. You can count on us not to do a thing for McCain.

Do you think we are bluffing? We are not in politics for profit or to get patronage. We are in politics because of our political ideals. In 1976, GOP poobahs thought we'd get over Reagan's losing the GOP nomination to Gerald Ford and we'd all work our tushes off for Ford just like we did for Reagan. Well, we told them what to do with themselves and we didn't give a rat's Pattie if Ford lost to the peanut warehouser. We just sat back and did other things. The GOP was very hard pressed to get volunteers to man phone banks and walk the precincts. Ford lost because we conservatives didn't lift a finger for him. Expect a repeat in 2008.

Republican Party hacks and party poobahs who are in it for power and political gain, get this through your very thick skulls on how we movement conservatives feel: The GOP stands for nothing, believes in nothing, honors nothing, justifies nothing, exhorts nothing, cherishes nothing, and essentially does nothing.

Exactly what you will get from us movement conservatives.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

A Party Switcher

Yesterday State Senator Nolan Mettetal switched parties from the Democratic to the Republican Party. He stated he was a conservative and the Democratic Party no longer welcomed conservatives. He said, "I'm the same person with the same values that I've always had, but I've found a new home."

Okay, fine. Since I'm nominally a Republican (Actually, I'm an Old Right conservative.), I like to see people switch from the Democratic to the GOP. Notice how he switched less than a month into the Legislative session and just three months after the election. How convenient. He used the Democratic Party to win the primary and to be elected as a Democrat. He was first elected as a Democrat back in 1995. He aligned himself with the Democrats in the State Senate, always identifying with that party. Now he's a Republican.

Here's my question: Why didn't he run as a Republican last year? That way, he could have stated how the Democratic Party betrayed conservatism and he was now running as a Republican. The voters could evaluate his decision to switch. Two State Senators last year did switch parties (from Democratic to Republican) and were thrown out by the voters.

Chances are very good Mettetal would have been thrown out by a strong Democrat. The area he represents is strong Democratic territory. But now he has four years to repair his political fences and get reelected (should he decide to run for reelection). The Democratic Party activists who worked for him feel betrayed. Can you blame them?

I like what Phil Gramm, the former U.S. Senator from Texas, did. He was reelected as a Democrat as a Congressman from Texas in 1982. He became disgusted with the Democratic Party and resigned his seat, saying he would swith parties and run as a Republican in a special election. He easily won and later ran for--and was elected--to the U.S. Senate.

However, Mississippi has no party affiliation in special elections. This is why I'm in favor of party registration. There should also be a provision in the party registration bill if an officeholder switches parties, his seat automatically becomes vacant and he must run in a special election for that seat under his new party label.

What Senator Mettatal should do is resign his seat and run in a special election under his new party label (even though it wouldn't be on the ballot). Let the voters decide if they agree on his party switch.

Monday, January 28, 2008

The Great Polarizer

There is no person who can polarize the country running for President as Hillary Clinton. Even though I'm a fire-breathing conservative who thinks President Bush is a liberal weenie, I could stomach Barak Obama. At least I'd give him a chance. And even though I would more than likely disagree with his policies if he were elected, I wouldn't dislike him. When Bill Clinton was President, I didn't like his policies. But I liked him as a person. In fact, he'd probably make a good fishing or hunting buddy.

Not Hillary Clinton. I do not dislike Hillary Clinton. I UTTERLY DESPISE HER. I don't call her "Hitlery" because I dislike her. I call her that because she is--and has in the past--determined to destroy those who disagree with her. We talked about the Presidential race in our Sunday School class yesterday. None of the Democrats or Republicans elicited much emotion. But all you had to do was mention Hillary and people started going ballistic. You have no idea how deeply hated she is.

If she is elected, she will have 40% of the people hating her guts (I'll be one of them.) the second she takes the oath of office as President. If she makes mistakes--which she will--that could easily rise to 60% or more. She is hated not because she is a woman. She could be my twin sister and I would passionately hate her. She is extremely ruthless who will have no limits in destroying her political opponents. She will come up with despicable lies to discredit her opponents. This is a person who has no iota of decency or honor. She is a crook and a pathological liar. I honestly believe she would steal milk from a dying baby if it would score her some political points.

She may very well be elected. But count on a polarized, deeply split country for four years if she is elected. If you think this country was polarized during Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's administrations, you haven't seen polarization until she is elected.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

The GOP Malaise

I have heard a lot from my friends on how they feel about the candidates running for the Republican Presidential nomination. I have never heard such a dislike for the field. In all my years of politics I have never seen such a lack of enthusiasm for the GOP candidates (the exception is the Ron Paul supporters) as I have seen this year. The biggest complaint I've heard is "none of them are like Reagan."

Reagan never got elected to office and then developed a political philosophy. I followed Reagan's political career from his famous speech "A Time for Choosing (delivered October 27, 1964)" until he retired from politics in 1994. If you look over his political career before he was elected to office as governor of California in 1966, he already had a well-developed political philosophy. He was not a cipher when it came to political philosophy. He actually read philosophers who developed the conservative philosophy he believed in--Locke, Hayek, von Mises, Kirk, etc. This is not just sheer talk. Reporters who visited him looked in his library. He actually had those books by those philosophers and underlined key passages. Believe it or not, Reagan was a conservative intellectual. When he decided to run for office, his political philosophy was already developed and backed by an intellectual knowledge of reading.

This is in very strong contrast to the candidates running for the GOP nomination. With the exception of Rep. Ron Paul, none of them have any defined conservative philosophy. If you were to ask them why they were conservatives, they could not give you an intelligent answer. (Paul could. Indeed, he is very well-read on conservative philosophy. His political philosophy was already developed when he was first elected to Congress in a special election back in 1976. Alas, he stands no chance of getting the nomination.). Of all the major candidates, Fred Thompson came the closest. But he has dropped out.

I have read the transcripts of the GOP debates and I can tell you the four major candidates--Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee--know nothing about conservatism and its intellectual underpinnings. They just flow with the times. They just differentiate themselves a little from the Democrats. Their big arguments are they are not Hitlery or Obama. Now that's a sure-fire political philosophy.

When all four of those candidates initially ran for office, none of them had a defined political philosophy. Giuliani was a GEORGE MCGOVERN supporter in 1972. Mitt Romney ran to the LEFT against Ted Kennedy(!) in his race for the U.S. Senate in 1994! Huckabee was a big taxer as governor of Arkansas. And McCain is certainly no conservative. Just look at that McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.

Now all these four claim to be conservative. They are no more conservative than my cat Bueller is a space alien. I just may vote third party this year. If this is the best the GOP can do, they richly deserve to lose. In all my years of being involved in the GOP Presidential primaries, I have never been so disenchanted as I have this year.

Let Hitlery govern for four years and mess up this county beyond recognition. The GOP will regain control of Congress and maybe the GOP will put up a REAL conservative in 2012.

Billy McCoy versus the GOP

State Rep. Billy McCoy was reelected House Speaker by the narrowest of margins, 62-60. In doing so, he did not get ONE Republican to vote for him. All 47 Republicans voted for Rep. Jeff Smith for Speaker. Smith also picked up thirteen Democratic State Representatives, two of them coming from the Legislative Black Caucus. The Democrats voted 62-13 for McCoy and the GOP voted 47-0 for Smith.

In retaliation, McCoy appointed all Democrats to House committee chairmanships. The only GOPers who got anything were freshmen appointed to vice chairmanships. But what did the GOP expect? They can scream and holler all they want, but they got what they deserved. Billy McCoy doesn't have to give them squat. To the victors belong the spoils. And you get your just desserts for raw partisanship.

Don't get me wrong. I'm FOR brass knuckles, blood gushing, groin kicking raw partisanship. I want both sides to present their arguments and to fight vigorously for them. I want screaming and nastiness on the legislative floors. Let the legislators passionately fight for their beliefs and ideals. I utterly despise State Rep. Steve Holland (D-Plantersville). He's a total jerk and other raw adjectives which I will not print. I think he barely passes for human. But I admire his raw partisanship. I admire his willingness to fight for what he believes in.

The GOP should learn a lesson here. Winning statewide races is great. But that means little if you can't win the legislative races. In a supposed Republican year, the GOP did not gain one seat in the House (It remained the same.) and lost three in the State Senate. If the GOP had used its resources for the legislative races they may have turned around a few seats in the House. But they were obsessed with winning those state races.

The GOP is going to learn the hard way that it's the small races that matter. The GOP should have a "Republican Legislature Victory Fund" or something like that. I would concentrate on winning more seats after redistricting in the 2011 elections. I would pour in tens of thousands of dollars in winning the marginal districts. Indeed, I would start recruiting candidates after the 2008 general election.

The GOP deserves no sympathy from anybody. They played raw partisanship in the House and lost. Live with it. And do something to win more legislative seats in 2011.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Utilities, Light Bulbs and Ron Paul

You are probably looking at the title and wondering, "Huh?" But they are all interconnected and explains the reason why I am gung-ho for Ron Paul to become the Republican nominee for President.

In California (where else?) the utility companies are coming up with a method to remotely control YOUR thermostat in a time of emergency. This will be done to new homes that are being built or are being remodeled. You will have NO control over your thermostat. There is no clear-cut definition as to what an "emergency" is. This could be the start of "Big Brother" as far as utility companies go. Talk about big government.

On a prior post, I wrote about the switch from incandescent to CFL (compact fluorescent) bulbs. By 2012, all 100-watt bulbs must be CFL bulbs. But here is the problem: The CFL bulbs have six times the mercury that is considered unsafe. In Maine, a CFL bulb broke in a residence. The homeowner called the Maine EPA and asked what was to be done, since it was considered a hazardous material. The Maine EPA said they could clean up the broken bulb---FOR $2000. Can you believe it? How are you dispose of the bulb when it burns out? When you get the answer, you can rest assured it will be more government hassles rammed down your throat.

So what does this have to do with Ron Paul? Government is becoming so intrusive and expansive that it is raiding our very private lives. What business is it of the government if we use incandescent light bulbs rather than CFLs? What gives a utility company the right to control my thermostat because of government fiat? Ron Paul thinks such stuff is an outrage. And where are the other Republican candidates to comment on these questions? I hear crickets chirping.

I have never seen such stupidity as this. We have the government telling us how many gallons a toilet must flush in our homes. We have the government telling us what temperature to set our thermostats. We have the government telling us what light bulbs to use. When will this nuttiness end?

This is why I am for Ron Paul. He is in favor of limiting government as to what the U.S. Constitution says it should do. Less government, more responsibility---and with God's help---a better nation.

Monday, January 14, 2008

Charlie Ross for Congress

In my opinion, there are four main candidates for the GOP nomination (and hence, election) for the Third Congressional District: They are John Rounsaville, David Landrum, Gregg Harper and Charlie Ross.

Let's look over those four candidates and their qualifications.

John Rounsaville worked for the USDA, so he's very knowledgeable about agricultural issues. That means a lot in this state. Also, he knows his way around the Third District. But other than that, he has no outstanding qualifications for Congress.

Gregg Harper has no political experience other than being the chairman of the Rankin County GOP. Now Rankin County is one of the most Republican counties in the state. He has raised a lot of money for the county and the state GOP. But other than that, what qualifies him to be a Congressman? I think he's running so he can get his name out to the public so he'll have a lot of name recognition when he runs for Dean Kirby's State Senate seat when he decides to retire.

David Landrum is a nice guy and a shrewd businessman. He's also spending the big bucks on TV advertising (If you haven't seen any of his TV commercials, you've been in hibernation.). But what qualifications does he bring to the race? He can make big bucks. Wow. Do you want a Congressman who bought the race?

Charlie Ross was once a State Representative and a State Senator. He accomplished a lot when he was a State Senator. He helped push through tort reform and the Castle Doctrine. He had a perfect pro-life record in the State Legislature. He had the HIGHEST pro-business BIPEC rating in the State Senate. He is exceptionally intelligent and a very hard worker. He's not a show horse but a workhorse.

Charlie Ross also knows his way through the Third District. He ran for Lt. Governor last year and received 43% of the vote. He was considered one of the most conservative candidates to run for office. The other candidates talk about how conservative they are. Well, all that is great. But Ross has the record to show for it.

On March 11th, please vote for Charlie Ross for Congress. We don't need any pretty boys or show horses. We need a workhorse like Charlie Ross.

Monday, January 07, 2008

Ron Paul Is Not An Antiwar Leftist

Many conservatives think Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul is an antiwar activist who is no different from Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who are both running for the Presidency. In fact, conservative organizations such as the American Conservative Union give Paul a low conservative rating because of his antiwar stance.

There is a vast difference between Ron Paul and the antiwar left. Ron Paul is for a very strong national defense and was in favor of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Indeed, Paul was a very strong Cold Warrior when the Soviet Union was trolling over Eastern Europe. The antiwar left is for cutting defensive weapons defending the US and blames American first for everything. If there was an attack on the US, I believe Ron Paul would go all-out militarily to defeat the aggressor. The antiwar left would blame American and "want to negotiate."

Where Ron Paul differs from neoconservatism (which is considered "mainstream conservatism" in politics today) is Paul is against using force in every nation of the world that is not a threat to national security. He is not one for trying to change a foreign nation's political system like we are doing in Iraq. Since when is it our business to tell another nation what political system to use? If a nation is a dictatorship and it does not affect our national security, that is that nation's business. Woodrow Wilson entered World War I to make the world "safe for democracy." Yeah, that worked real well. He planted the seeds for the rise of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. We fought a bloody World War II and a long Cold War because Wilson wanted to ram America's political system down the throats of Europe.

Bush reminds me of Wilson. But suppose Wilson had never got the US in World War I. There eventually would have been a negotiated settlement with Germany grabbing some of western France. But that would have been it. So let's say we would have been stuck with the Kaiser of Germany and the Emperor of Austria-Hungary with no free elections. Would that have been so bad compared to what really did happen--planting the seeds for the rise of Nazi Germany and Communism? And now Bush wants democracy in the Middle East. If there were free elections in Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia Muslim extremists would win. Is that what we want--more Islamic extremism?

Ron Paul is correct when he says Bush's crusade for democracy offends the targeted nations. How would you like it if you were a citizen of, say, Bulgaria, and an American President says you must have a democratic government? What if the US said it would invade your nation if you didn't change your government? Would you like being dictated by a foreign power as to what kind of government you should have? Bulgarians are a proud people don't like being pushed around. They are proud of their history. (For the record, Bulgaria is a free republic. I'm just using that nation as an example.) How do you think the citizens in Muslim countries feel?

Ron Paul's foreign policy is very simple: Unless that nation is a direct threat to our national security, the United States has NO BUSINESS getting involved in the domestic and foreign policy affairs of that nation. If that nation is such a threat, then the United States should do all it can to repel that threat, even if it means military action.

Ron Paul is in favor of withdrawing from Iraq because it was never a direct threat to our national security. Let's say Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. He would have used them on Iran, a nation he fought an eight-year (1980-1988) war against, or Israel (who probably would have smoked him). He certainly wouldn't have used them against the US. With 3910 American dead and 28822 wounded, has the war really been worth it? Has the $610 billion been worth it as far as our national security is concerned?

Ron Paul's foreign policy was considered mainstream Republican thinking until 1947. Today he is considered a pariah in his own party.

Ron Paul is not antiwar because he hates America. He's antiwar because he loves American and wants to return her to the ideals she once knew.

Saturday, January 05, 2008

Ron Paul Is the True Conservative

Many conservatives consider Texas Congressman to be a crank, fascist, antiwar fanatic, neoNazi, a kook, crazy, and other opprobrious adjectives. But if this were the 1920s, Ron Paul would be the prototype conservative. So what has happened?

For years the Old Right Conservatives ruled the GOP. Indeed, from 1919 to 1947 they controlled the GOP and ran the government from 1919 to 1931. So what do the Old Right Conservatives believe in?

First of all, we (since I consider myself to be in the ORC camp) believe in the rule of natural law. That means all people are equal and have equality of opportunity. We believe in the sanctity of life and being governed by the Judeo-Christian principles as outlined in the Bible.

Secondly, we believe the role of the Federal government is to adjudicate disputes between states and provide for the national defense. That's it.

Thirdly, we believe the states should be the preeminent ruling polity in the United States. The states should rule and set their own rules for welfare, taxation and social issues without the interference of the Federal government.

Fourth, we believe the United States should not get involved in ANY foreign disputes or send troops on foreign soil unless it affects the national security and safety of the United States. We are opposed to all foreign aid. We believe the US should have the strongest national defense in the world. We are not anti-military and support the military. We are just against getting involved in foreign disputes if it does not affect our national security.

Fifth, we believe in the nationhood of the United States. We are opposed to all illegal immigration. We welcome all legal immigrants and hope they become citizens. We believe our language should be only the English language for political and business transactions.

Sixth, the United States Constitution should rule in all matters. If it is not specified in the Constitution, then no political entity or elected official has the right to create new powers in the Constitution.

We are NOT libertarians. Libertarians believe in open borders and unlimited immigration. They also believe in abortion on demand and the national legalization of all drugs.

We ORCs believe the states should rule. For example, if Vermont wants to legalize homosexual marriage and legalize all drugs, that is Vermont's business. If that state wishes to create a socialist economy and have state control, that is their right. On the other hand, if Mississippi wishes to ban ALL abortions and make it a crime punishable by death for performing an abortion, Mississippi should be allowed to do that. If Mississippi wishes to make homosexuality a crime punishable by a jail sentence and drug usage punishable by imprisonment, it should have that right. And if Mississippi wishes to have a capitalist, free-market economy, it should have that right to do so.

From the founding of our Republic until 1931, state government spending was TWICE the amount of Federal government spending (except for war). The Feds were rarely involved in controlling the economy and sending troops overseas. Until 1917, all of our wars were fought on the North American continent. And with the exception of the War of Northern Aggression ("Civil War" to you Yanks.), there was no military draft. Indeed, Old Right Conservatism was the ruling belief. It is hard to believe that until 1901 all drugs were legal and until 1934 marijuana was legal (I'm not advocating drug legalization. I'm opposed to the use of drugs and never tried drugs--or tobacco or hard liquor.).

That changed with the Federal income tax in 1913, the Federal Reserve banking system and America's entry into a stupid war in Europe in 1917. But the main invasion of Federal power came during the Great Depression and World War II. Today the Federal government wants to reign supreme in our lives. In fact, they are now telling us what light bulbs to buy (honest!).

The ORCs faded away with the Cold War. But they made a comeback after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. For 150 days, there were no enemies to the US. Then came the first Bush's foolish invasion of Iraq. And thirteen years later his son decided to invade Iraq again. The neoconservatives took over in the first Bush's administration and run the GOP.

The neoconservatives believe in big government conservatism and the foolish notion of spreading democracy to lands that are under a different government structure. They are in favor of big government--just not as big as the liberals would have. They have taken a page out of liberal President Woodrow Wilson's foolish playbook and are trying to make the world "safe for democracy." We are now involved in the tar pits of the Middle East with no exit strategy in sight.

Read the Republican Party platform of 1964 and compare it to the one in 2004. You would not recognize that it is the same party. The GOP has morphed into a liberal party but just not as liberal as the Democrats. The Old Right was prevalent in the 1964 platform as far as domestic policy was concerned. The neoconservatives wrote the GOP 2004 platform.

Ron Paul is an Old Right Conservative. He is campaigning as such. If you read Joseph Scotchey's book Revolt in the Heartland, you would know exactly where Ron Paul stands (It is an excellent book with great sources.). He is a radical only because he wants to go back to the roots of limited government in the domestic and foreign spheres. He is condemned as a nut and a kook. But that was the common sense of our nation from 1789 to 1913.

The Old Right Conservatives' credo has been the same from the founding of our Republic to the present: Less government, more responsibility---and with God's help, a better nation.

In the 2008 Presidential race, there is no question as to whom the REAL conservative is. It is Ron Paul.

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

Why I'm for Ron Paul

I know Texas Congressman Ron Paul doesn't stand a snowball's chance in Key West, Fla. of winning the Republican Presidential nomination. My friends tell me I'm wasting my vote. And others say Paul is a political "kook."

Nevertheless, I will do all I can to help Paul and I'll vote for him in the GOP primary on March 11th. The reason is the bankruptcy of ideas in the Republican Presidential race. ALL the candidates are for growing the government. The questions are which one will do it the least and the efficiency of that growth. Day by day some candidate has some scheme on how to attack global warming or combat Iran. And ALL of them support the war in Iraq.

I am not a neoconservative or a libertarian. I am like Ron Paul--an Old Right Conservative (hereafter abbreviated as ORC). I'm for giving the states more rights to chart their own destinies, stay out of foreign affairs and limit the powers of the Federal government. Unlike the New Left who wants us to pull out of Iraq because we are an evil and rotten people, I'm for pulling out because Iraq was never a direct threat to the safety and well-being of the US. If Saddam Hussein had those weapons of mass destruction, he would have gone after Israel or Iran--not the United States. Ron Paul is the only one who is in favor of pulling out of Iraq.

Most of all, I'm tired of big government running my life. Now the government is going to tell us what kind of light bulb we should use. No, I am NOT kidding. By 2012, the 100-watt incandescent light bulb will no longer be sold. You will have to use a CFL bulbs, or compact fluorescent. Indeed, the government may make it illegal for an individual to use an incandescent light bulb in his home. That is the goal of the environmental wackos. Other than Paul, I have YET to hear a word of protest about this dim bulb bill Congress passed just a couple of weeks ago. Right now, I'm stocking up on incandescent light bulbs. Let the Feds come after me.

When does all this nuttiness end? Why is Paul the only one protesting this idiocy? Where are Romney, Huckabee (He'll preach the bulbs to come on.), Giuliani, Thompson and McCain on the growth of idiocy on the part of government? When does government get out of our lives? In the People's Socialist Republic of Massachusetts, you can be fined $912 by the state for not having health insurance. This is freedom? Thank Mitt Romney for that. And this guy wants to be our President?

Where do we draw the line? Mike Huckabee wants a national ban on smoking. I don't smoke and I don't allow it in our office. I don't go to restaurants that have smoking. But that's MY business. I don't want government telling places you can't have smoking. Smoking bothers you? Boycott the place. But the last thing we need is government dictating to businesses they must ban smoking. For God's sake--is this the United States or a dictatorship?

Now there's a war on trans fats. Okay, we all know fatty foods are not good for you. But now New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg (who may run for President as an independent) demands all restaurants and fast-food places ban trans fats. You don't like foods with trans fats? Don't eat them. Can't you read the stinking ingredients? Or are you too stupid or lazy?

Government loves to run our lives so we can fit the images the elite wants us to be. We must not smoke (What about booze? Why isn't there a war on booze?), eat fatty foods, not have guns, not drive big cars (I drive a Beetle. But that's MY business--not the government's.), not use incandescent light bulbs, not be uninsured for health insurance, be socially tolerant of every perversion that hits and let the government dictate to us their diktats. And yet there is not ONE candidate other than Ron Paul who is complaining about omnipotent government snuffing out our liberties.

I'm tired of getting involved in every foreign dispute because we don't like the government. I was a cold warrior because I was totally opposed to communism. And yes, the Soviet Union and Red China were direct threats to our liberty. But the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union fell starting in 1989. Now we have the Islamofascists. It's strange we didn't mess with them until the first Bush had to wage war against Iraq in 1990-1991. That was a totally useless war that dragged us into the Middle East mosh pit. Now we are stuck in a permanent war in Iraq with very little chance of getting out in the next ten years. Iran could be our next war. The Middle East wars will cost us TRILLIONS of dollars with no end in sight. When do these foreign entanglements end? We are knee-deep in NATO. Do you know if Russia attacks Estonia, a member of NATO, we are obligated to come to Estonia's aid? We are talking armed conflict, folks.

I'll write in another post as to what the Old Right Conservative (ORC) philosophy is. But Ron Paul is a firm spear carrier for the Old Right. I'm tired of big government conservatism. In fact, I'm tired of big government period--both in the domestic and foreign spheres.

It's time for a change in direction in the GOP and the nation. It's time to elect Ron Paul as President.