Anyone who’s read this website knows that my first choice for president was Fred Thompson. Since that didn’t work out the way I’d hoped, I’m thankful that he didn’t just disappear back to Hollywood. We need Fred to continue advocating conservatism’s core principles. That’s precisely what he did in this column.

We’ve heard alot recently that we’d have to remake the GOP brand, whatever that’s supposed to be. I suspect the people saying it really mean that conservatives need to abandon conservatism. I’ve rejected that as utter nonsense. I’m not alone in the Right Blogosphere, either. The best news is that Fred Thompson thinks it’s BS, too:

We know that we were given a country based upon certain eternal truths, the wisdom of the scriptures and the wisdom of the ages, the fact that there is such a thing as human nature that has to be taken into account when governing, and most fundamentally, based upon the fact that people are meant to be free. Our founders derived from these principles a government that had its powers separated, checked and balanced because they knew that power tended to corrupt. In keeping with that they incorporated in our Constitution a system of Federalism to make sure that there was not too much power concentrated in the central government, which was given delineated powers and no others.

When we see government burdening us with unnecessary regulations, it’s imperative that we fight against it. When we see government attempting to burden us with trillion dollar tax increases, we must fight against it. (continue reading post »)

Scott McLellan’s book is getting alot of buzz this morning, mostly on the basis that it sounds like it’s written by the Daily Kos. I’ll reserve judgment on whether the snippets now being discussed are reflective of the book until I read the book but I don’t need to wait to pass judgment on this quote in the AJC’s article:

“President Bush has always been an instinctive leader more than an intellectual leader. He is not one to delve into all the possible policy options, including sitting around engaging in extended debate about them, before making a choice,” McClellan wrote. “Rather, he chooses based on his gut and his most deeply held convictions. Such was the case with Iraq.”

Based on what Bob Woodward wrote in “Bush at War”, McLellan’s take simply doesn’t hold water. Woodward wrote about how President Bush would toss out a subject with his national security team and let them argue about their positions to get the benefit of multiple perspectives. (continue reading post »)

The Republican Party isn’t the majority party here in Minnesota nor in our nation’s capital for a variety of reasons. I’d submit that the biggest reason why we aren’t the majority party is because we stopped being the party of ideas. Here in Minnesota, though, we’re taking corrective action, action that doesn’t rely on the state party.

Instead, what a group of activists have done is turned the MOB (Minnesota Organization of Bloggers) into the Activists’ News Network. Many of our state legislators stay in touch with what’s important to working class people by reading blogs like True North, Powerline, MDE, SCSUScholars, Let Freedom Ring, Ladies Logic and Shot In The Dark. Our House GOP leadership reads the blogs on a daily basis, as do their staff.

The House GOP Caucus has used this to stay in touch with what’s important with activists. That’s important because the activists/citizen journalists stay in touch with their neighbors, co-workers and friends. I can’t emphasize this point enough. If the GOP wants to return to majority status anytime soon, it has to start with listening to what the people are saying.

It’s my contention that the reason why earmarks have proliferated at the rate they have is in direct proportion to the RNC and other Beltway ‘alphabets’ not having a coherent or appealing agenda. To get an appealing agenda, the RNC must listen to the people living in the Heartland because what’s importatnt in the Heartland is dramatically different than what’s important to the Beltway’s opinion shapers. (continue reading post »)

Michele Bachmann, my representative, has been unfairly criticized for signing a pledge that she wouldn’t accept earmarks. Her political opponents didn’t bother finding out why she made this pledge. Thursday afternoon, I got a mailing from Rep. Bachmann that explains her position on earmarks. It also tells about what she’s doing to take the corruption out of the earmark process. First, here’s Michele’s explanation on why she took the pledge:

Like you, the status of the DeSoto Bridge repairs is very important to me. There are few arteries or bridges more vital to the St. Cloud area. Regrettably, it’s critical projects just like this that are shortchanged most by rampant pork barrel spending in Washington.

That’s why I’ve taken a pledge to not take any earmarks this year while working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who are determined to reform the earmarking system. It is our hope to replace a system of backroom backscratching with one in which projects are judged on merit and each of your tax dollars is spent wisely on real priorities.

Contrary to what her political opponents say, Rep. Bachmann isn’t opposed to earmarks:

In my first year in the Congress, I requested local earmarks for my district and was fortunate to secure funding for important local projects, including $803,600 for St. Cloud Metro Bus. I was able to stand confidently by each and every earmark request made, knowing they could stand on their merits withstand public scrutiny. Not all my colleagues could say that. Some sought millions of dollars in funding for golf programs, Christmas tree gift shops and the like.

It’s just a guess but I’m betting this is what turned Rep. Bachmann off about the earmark process: (continue reading post »)

This afternoon, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. Based on the questions that the strict constructionist jurists asked, it appears likely that DC’s gun ban law won’t be sustained. Here’s what Stephen Breyer asked:

Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted the number of people killed by handguns and asked if it was unreasonable for a “city with a very high crime rate to say ‘no handguns here.’”

Here’s how Chief Justice John Roberts responded to Breyer’s question:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked: “What’s reasonable about a total ban on possession?”

Here’s the Washington Post’s reporting that makes me believe that DC’s ban will be overturned:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, often seen as the deciding vote on the divided court, immediately made it clear he did not accept the District’s arguments, and the views of a vast majority of federal appeals courts, that the Second Amendment provided only a collective right to gun possession in furtherance of military purpose.

The amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (continue reading post »)

There’s a must read WSJ editorial out today that details the fight between Obama and Hillary over HillaryCare II. here’s a sample from the editorial:

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on most policy issues, but that makes their rare differences all the more revealing. To wit, their running scrap over Mrs. Clinton’s “individual mandate” for health care, which Mr. Obama has now had the nerve to expose for its inevitable government coercion.

Mrs. Clinton’s proposal requires everyone to buy health insurance, along with more insurance regulation, a government insurance option for everyone and tax hikes. Mr. Obama likes all that but his mandate would only apply to children. He argues that the reason many people aren’t insured is because it’s too expensive, not because they don’t want it. Mrs. Clinton counters that coverage can’t be “universal” without a mandate.

But then Mr. Obama had the impudence to defend his views. His campaign distributed a mailer in key primary states that claimed the Clinton plan “forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it.” It also featured an image of an anxious couple at a kitchen table.

The Clinton apparat went apoplectic, claiming the flyer evokes the famous “Harry and Louise” commercials. A common article of liberal faith is that this “smear campaign” doomed HillaryCare in 1994, as opposed to, say, its huge cost and complexities. But never mind.

Yet if Mrs. Clinton’s plan is better because it has a mandate, how does it work in the real world, where some people still won’t be able to afford insurance, or would decline to acquire it? At a recent debate, the Illinois Senator drove the point home, asking Mrs. Clinton, “You can mandate it but there will still be people who can’t afford it. And if they can’t afford it, what are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?” And in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Mrs. Clinton conceded that “we will have an enforcement mechanism” that might include “you know, going after people’s wages.”

There aren’t many differences between Hillary and Obama so it’s important to point out a difference as significant as this. Hillary admitted to George Stephanopoulos that they’d “have an enforcement mechanism” in her new plan: (continue reading post »)

With today being Ronald Reagan’s birthday, I thought it would be a perfect time to remind people of his wisdom and the principles that drove his policies.

The Great Communicator’s wisdom was uncanny. He had a habit of standing conventional wisdom on its head. He was able to do this because he’d thought the issues through to such an extent that he was the expert, at least on the strategic level. Reagan then picked people that were skilled tacticians to deal with the day-to-day things.

King at SCSUScholars and I are teaching MOBsters the value of Reagan’s saying that “Your 80 percent friend is not your 20 percent enemy.” The wisdom behind it is that Reagan’s conservatism was principled, not dogmatic. He knew how to get people to his side of an issue.

I’ll always remember another thing Reagan said during his farewell speech on January 11, 1989:

Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: “We the people.” “We the people” tell the government what to do, it doesn’t tell us. “We the people” are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which “We the people” tell the government what it is allowed to do. “We the people” are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I’ve tried to do these past eight years.

AMEN TO THAT, MR. PRESIDENT!!! (continue reading post »)

After getting his ass handed to him on immigration reform the first time, John McCain started saying that he’d “gotten the message”. He still insists that his bill wasn’t amnesty, though, making conservatives wary of his immigration ‘transformation’. This information should remove all doubt:

A reader alerted me to the fact that McCain’s “Hispanic Outreach Director” is the same guy who held that job for Mexico’s President Vicente Fox! U.S.-born dual citizen Juan Hernandez was in Fox’s cabinet as Director of the Office for Mexicans Living Abroad and is notorious for having said of Mexican Americans on Nightline on June 7, 2001, “I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first.’” Does McCain agree with this? Has he offered Hernandez, a former high-level foreign government official who presumably swore an oath to uphold the Mexican constitution, a place in a future McCain Administration? That’s not a rhetorical question.

I’ve said many times that people didn’t trust McCain’s second attempt because La Raza (NCLR) had veto power over anything brought up. NCLR are open borders advocates. Add the hiring Juan Hernandez as his “Hispanic Outreach Director” to the NCLR debacle and you’ve got an immigration reform disgrace. It’s pretty apparent that John McCain hasn’t changed his views one iota. He’s still the same pro-amnesty guy he’s always been.

McCain’s actions tell us what his position is. His actions don’t agree with his words, which is a polite way of saying that McCain shouldn’t be trusted with immigration policy. He’s as stubborn and prideful as anyone I’ve ever seen in public life. Frankly, I wouldn’t trust him on immigration policy if my life depended on it. (continue reading post »)

I’ve never made it a secret that I’ve had trouble trusting John Boehner. I saw him ’slip’ questions on Crossfire too often to think of him as trustworthy and straightforward. After reading this post on Club For Growth’s blog, I realize that I’ll have to rethink my opinion on Rep. Boehner:

Boehner Says House GOP Must Draw Line On Earmarks Or Prepare For Permanent Minority. House Minority Leader John Boehner used the first House GOP Conference meeting of 2008 to draw a very hard line on congressional earmarks. Boehner, who is one of the few Members of Congress who does not earmark, told his colleagues that if they cannot break out of that habit, they will not regain the majority. According to a knowledgeable source, Boehner told the Conference this morning, “Washington is broken. We need to show the American people we’re ready to fix it,” adding, “We aren’t going to earn the majority back until we do something serious about earmarks. If we don’t get serious about it, and get serious soon, we’re going nowhere.” The source said Boehner concluded by saying, “I have no interest in being minority leader just to be minority leader. I took this job to lead an effort to earn back our majority; this year. Not next year or the year after that. This year.”

That’s music to my ears!!! If Boehner pulls this off, then I’ll start trusting him more. Let’s hope that this bulletin inspires President Bush to issue the EO that instructs government agencies to ignore the airdropped earmarks included in this year’s budget bill conference report.

The sooner Republicans make fiscal sanity their trademark, the faster we’ll return to being the majority party.

Technorati Tags: Earmarks, John Boehner, Minority Leader, Budget Bill, Fiscal Sanity, Election 2008

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Rush Limbaugh took Newt Gingrich to task for what Gingrich said during his appearance on ABC’s This Week. Listening to Rush’s uber-spirited ‘defense’ of conservatism was inspiring. First, here’s what Newt said:

GINGRICH: I think the brokered convention would pick one of the people who had filed for president, but I think the process, after all, it was…You know, Abraham Lincoln was running third and won the convention. He didn’t come in first on the first ballot, and so, I think there’s nothing unhealthy about the Republican Party having a serious discussion. We are at the end of the George W. Bush era. We are at the end of the Reagan era. We’re at a point in time when we’re about to start redefining, as a number of people started talking about, starting to redefine, the nature of the Republican Party, in response to what the country needs.

Here’s part of Rush’s reply:

I mean, is there a Gingrich coalition that has replaced the Reagan coalition? For that matter, what is the McCain coalition? If we’re going to have a new era, what is the McCain era? What is the Huckabee era? What is their winning coalition? They don’t have one. You know, all this sounds like Third Way kind of talk, the triangulation of the Clinton years in the nineties. But I don’t know what the McCain era would be, and I don’t know what the Huckabee coalition is. They don’t have a coalition. They’re out trying to get votes of independents and Democrats. They’re pandering to moderates and independents. Folks, I just want you to think about this: What happens if either of these two guys happen to win, attracting the votes of independents, moderates, the Jell-Os, and Democrats? Does that not equal the demise of the Republican Party? Do you think McCain’s out there actually trying to get Republican votes? Is Huckabee trying to get Republican votes? Romney is. Giuliani is. Fred Thompson certainly is. But if we have a nominee that is a nominee on the basis of moderate and independent and Democrat voters, then what happens to the Republican Party?

As you’d expect, Rush wasn’t finished:

Well, conservatism isn’t dead because it cannot be dead. Conservatism is not manmade. Conservatism is a philosophy. It’s not a scheme. It’s not a plan to figure out what the American people need and want, and then give it to them. That’s populism! Conservatism is a philosophy based on God-given natural rights. The Declaration of Independence, is that dead? Of course not! What’s dead is leadership on the Republican side, and because there is a lack of leadership of someone who the substantive understanding of liberty and the political skills to advance it, we get all this cockamamie nonsense about the death of our principles. Our principles are not dead! Our principles cannot die. I’ll tell you, in a lot of ways this reminds me of Jimmy Carter and his malaise speech. He blamed the American people for his miserable failures as president. Now we have conservatives and conservative wannabes, many of whom have held high office or hold high office or speak and write from formerly conservative outposts, who blame conservatives for their own miserable failures. What is lacking is not ideas and principles. What’s lacking is the right people to speak those ideas and principles, folks.

Frankly, We The People need to start cleaning house. I’ve railed before about the nitwits who call themselves GOP strategists. Some worry about whether 2008 will be as bad for Republicans as 2006. People get paid to think that way? People here in the heartland are pining for a revolution and these strategists are worried about another blowout.

MESSAGE TO POPULISTS AND STRATEGISTS: If you aren’t going to get back to conservatism’s first principles, then get out of our way. (continue reading post »)