Huckabee for Chancellor

The more Mike Huckabee says these days less viable he seems as the Republican candidate. Since his recent surge in the polls he’s slammed the free market Club for Growth, defended anti-gay and profoundly stupid comments about AIDS patients he made as a 1992 Senate candidate, and insulted the Mormon faith with an ignorance that, for a Baptist minister, is baffling. Then again, with his support for illegal alien amnesty, denial of evolution, sacred commitment to solving global warming, and across the board embrace of “compassionate conservatism,” he’s starting to look more like Germany’s Christian Democratic candidate for Chancellor. So it’s not hard to see why other big-government Christians in the Republican base are flocking to Huckabee just in time for primary season to begin.

The story of the Republican primary thus far has been the lack of a “Christian” candidate that can please the religious base. In all fairness to the field, folks like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain may not wear their faith on their sleeve as Pat Robertson did when he sought the ’88 nomination, but they’re far from the godless heathens some on the right-wing message boards are portraying them as. On the contrary, candidates like Huckabee (or anyone else who raised their hand denying evolution) can learn from those able to separate their everyday and religious lives. Faith and religion are just as important to Catholic Rudy Giuliani, Baptist John McCain, and yes, even Mormon Mitt Romney.

Huckabee’s surge may only represent the latest flavor in the base’s “none of the above” disillusionment. The religious right never connected with any of the major candidates and flocked to noted actor and one-time Senator Fred Thompson, who initially was a mere speculative candidate. After taking forever and a day to declare for the race, his campaign got off to a rocky start when he chose talk show appearances over debates. Once he was firmly established in the race, his poll numbers sank, making him more popular as a private citizen and Law & Order guest star than an actual candidate for higher office. If on the other hand the Huckabee freight train continues, it signifies a serious problem within the Republican Party- one that could keep them in the minority of Congress and on the outside of the White House for years to come.

The GOP’s embrace of Christian Democracy is hardly anything new. The Moral Majority folks who claimed credit for Ronald Reagan’s election had no problem extending the state where it ought not to go. Unlike liberalism, they viewed their actions as “Christian” when they sought to impose morality and decency standards on society. “What would Jesus do,” they asked. Re-write the Constitution, mandate religious instruction in schools, sanction government discrimination against gays, create new faith-based (or secular) welfare programs, grant amnesty to illegal (but Christian!) aliens, and militantly oppose abortion, apparently. In terms of cultural and social policy, the sky was and is the limit as to where the state can go. In short, there seems to be no difference between this form of phony American conservatism and the manifestos of the Christian Democratic parties across Europe which are perfectly content with operating in a socialist system where the state lives peoples’ lives for them.

Huckabee’s rise in the polls this time of year makes the perfect present for ambitious Democrats itching to take back the White House (and make gains in both houses of Congress). Huckabee’s public denial of evolution illustrates him as being an anti-science flat world nut. His defense of profoundly stupid comments regarding AIDS and gays fifteen years ago shows him as intolerant towards those people and the very caricature of today’s conservatives. Furthermore, his rebuke of the Club for Growth and his tax-raising, government-expanding, amnesty-granting record as Governor of Arkansas shows him as incompatible with even fundamental small government conservatism. And his lack of knowledge and experience in foreign policy would give even Barack Obama the upper hand in debates next year.

His support is only skin-deep as well in a race in which practically every segment of the political spectrum to the right of Hugo Chavez is needed. One in seven non-evangelicals support Huckabee in Iowa and a meager one in twenty non-evangelicals are for him in New Hampshire. This translates to a Republican candidate who would struggle to win states north of his native Arkansas and west of Nebraska. It’s not hard to see then why Democrats- and the media- are going easy on Huckabee and letting him do all the destruction. It’s easy for someone like Huckabee to say that he’d rather be right than be President, and it’s also easy for the Christian Democrats in the GOP base to say they’d rather have someone who believed exactly the same things they did rather than someone who could best win the election. But it’s also very easy to see that with Candidate Huckabee Republicans may be “right” instead of “elected” for a long time.

The Conservative Championship Series

Britain’s Daily Telegraph recently compiled a list of the 100 Most-Influential Liberals and Conservatives in anticipation of the upcoming presidential election next year. While it made for an entertaining read- especially from a foreign perspective- it was not without its flaws. Since a favorite past-time of mine is scrutinizing and compiling lists, here now are my thoughts on the Telegraph’s list. You might even see one of mine in the future.

Most Overrated:

47. Senator Joseph Lieberman: In an ideal world, all Democrats would act, think, and sound like Joe Lieberman: while liberal on social and economic issues, fiercely patriotic on matters of national defense. Still, Lieberman’s conservative credentials are as greatly exaggerated as the reports of his political demise. In truth, there isn’t a lot this “Independent Democrat” and the Republicans agree on: a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood and a 1% score from the Club for Growth, just to name a couple. Still, Lieberman made (both) their lists.

89. Senator Larry Craig: Would this man have made the list a year ago? I’m guessing not. How, exactly, a high profile scandal in an airport bathroom qualifies you as an influential conservative I haven’t a clue. I didn’t see the likes of Mark Foley on this list, for instance. In fact, far from being influential, the conservative movement has turned their scorn his way demanding he resign. Whether or not he does, he’ll be out by the time his term expires in January 2009.

96. Congressman Ron Paul: This second-tier (at best) presidential candidate is both stark raving mad and not a conservative. The Telegraph apparently made the mistake of throwing libertarians in the mix with conservatives. Dr. No (he was an ob/gyn) carries almost no interest in the movement among real conservatives and very little interest outside his small group of e-fanatics.

39. Drew Carey: Another victim of mistaken identity, this libertarian is also quite shy in his politics compared to his liberal colleagues in Hollywood. However, with his career making a comeback, he’s not a bad guy for conservatives to claim. His connection to the Reason Foundation and other libertarian causes though make him a solid defender of the cause of freedom.

38. Jack Abramoff: Along with Larry Craig (and Mark Foley), this guy’s influence will only exist in 2008 among liberal name-droppers hoping to wave the bloody shirt of Republican corruption. That is at the same time trying to draw attention away from the Democratic Congress’ 11% approval rating (the Ebola Virus got around 15% and Yoko Ono scores about 20%, by the way). Among conservatives, however, this disgraced former lobbyist is as distant a memory as last year’s electoral tidal wave. I’m sure that if Hillary wins the nomination, Democrats will do all they can to stay away from the “corruption” issue next year.

Most Underrated:

84. Ann Coulter: Love her, hate her, or wish she had been killed in a terrorist attack, when Ann speaks or writes, conservatives listen and read. If this is not influence, then influence has no meaning. She continues to be both a top draw on college campuses and a more eligible bachelorette among college-aged males than Erin Andrews. All of her books are best-sellers including her newest “If Democrats Had Any Brains They’d Be Republicans.” As the Telegraph put it, “she is impossible to ignore.” Then why put her so low?

82. Bill O’Reilly: Another (somewhat) conservative voice who was placed way too low. The O’Reilly Factor is the highest-rated program on cable news, many of his books are bestsellers, and The Radio Factor boasts millions of listeners. In fact, at this rate he’s only a bad feature film away from replacing Howard Stern as the “King of All Media.” The Telegraph calls him a “liberal hate figure,” and says “when he gets hold of an issue, Conservatives listen.” Personally, if this were my list, he would be #2 only to Rush Limbaugh among conservative media personalities.

85. Justice Clarence Thomas: When Republican presidential candidates are asked what types of judges they will appoint to the courts, Thomas’ name always comes up. Justice Thomas has been a target of left-wing hate since his name was placed by George Bush the Elder to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall. Aside from being a conservative replacement for this former NAACP litigator, Thomas represented everything the Democratic Party was against: quite simply, he was a self-made black man. Anita Hill was merely a last desperate attempt to derail his nomination to the Court, and when that backfired, Senate Democrats were left red-faced. Since then he has been a steady and reliable jurist who upholds precedent and reads the Constitution for what it is, rather than what his far-left colleagues would prefer it say. What’s more, the relatively youthful Thomas could see his best and most-influential days ahead of him.

93. Michelle Malkin: Our answer to the hate-filled anti-American blogs of the left. Her webpage gets heavy traffic and her influence on the blogosphere is undeniable: just look at the racist hate mail she gets every day! In the past, she urged Americans to “Buy Danish” when Islamofascists tried to incite a boycott of goods after a Danish newspaper ran a cartoon depicting Mohammed. Today, while still quite young, she is an experienced and tempered culture warrior who blasts amnesty for illegals and keeps GOP hopefuls accountable.

49. William F. Buckley, Jr.: Let me put this quite succinctly: There wouldn’t BE a modern conservative movement if not for William F. Buckley. He founded National Review magazine in 1955 at a time when eastern moderates and liberals like Dwight Eisenhower, Thomas Dewey, and Nelson Rockefeller ran the Republican Party and conservatives like Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan were either in the minority or not yet on the electoral stage. Simply put, Buckley was a conservative- a consummate conservative- before it was politically popular. Only his advancing age is keeping Buckley- who recently called the Iraq War a failure- from continuing to play a part in conservative politics. Still, his history and power cannot be overstated as he is nothing less than our movement’s patriarch.

Phony Conservatives

While the 2008 presidential race continues at its death march pace, a song came to mind thanks to a recent meeting by several prominent leaders of the religious right (only a few of whom are both still above ground AND still relevant). “You can’t always get what you want, but . . . sometimes . . . you get what you need.” It seems that none of the “values voter” conservatives, the traditional Republican base of support since about 1980, seems even remotely satisfied with anyone in the field, unless they’re on a candidate’s payroll. They want Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater and seem unwilling to accept that neither will make an appearance at the ’08 convention in St. Paul.

Their frustrations were brought out at a meeting in late September where they decided to consider supporting a third party candidate should the GOP nominate someone who is not as solidly, unrelentingly, and obsessively opposed to abortion (and gay marriage, and stem cell research) as they are. The short list of those candidates includes current frontrunner Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and (for some) Mitt Romney. Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family was there, so was Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. Most notably, former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer joined in by phone, apparently ready to jump from the ship he couldn’t get on.

To be sure, none of the major candidates (Rudy, Freddy, and Romney) has an unblemished record of social conservatism. Mayor Giuliani openly describes himself as moderate or even liberal on abortion and gay marriage while having a shaky marital history himself. Senator Thompson lobbied for abortion groups in his past and opposed a federal marriage amendment, while social conservatives have attacked Governor Romney as “just another flip-flopper from Massachusetts” for stances he took before, during, and after his term in the Commonwealth. Still, early pollsters seem willing to defy the will of the socially conservative base and have placed these three at the head of the pack along with John McCain, who has also drawn the wrath of Dobson.

The religious right’s opposition to these candidates begs the question of which candidates they WOULD support for the nomination. There are a handful of socially conservative candidates who would suit the religious right’s demands for single-issue campaigns, if they had even a snowball’s chance in hell of gaining delegates to the convention. Those assembled in Salt Lake City acknowledged this passively in their opposition to pro-choice candidates while failing to name a preference of their own. Their apparent willingness to abandon the party they brought to and kept in power for the better part of 30 years is perhaps the final break between themselves and the rest of the party.

While the religious right is supposed to be the GOP’s most loyal voting block, I personally would like to know this from the likes of James Dobson and Pat Robertson: what have you done for us lately? Since re-electing a president they now no longer support, things started getting tough for elected Republicans in 2005. After those in Washington bent over backwards (sorry, bad choice of words?) to accommodate the religious rights demands- another federal marriage amendment, another limp-wristed anti-abortion resolution, another divisive stem cell research ban- how were Republicans repaid when it was time to go to the polls? The religious right stayed home (or worse, voted for conservative Democrats) and put Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker’s chair.

The recent conference exposes this group for what they really are: phony conservatives. They are in fact no better than the liberals they despise in their opposition to even rudimentary conservative principles. To borrow a party label from Europe, those assembled in Salt Lake City recently are not Republicans but mere Christian Democrats, willing to expand the federal government in size, scope, and authority and impose their will on the majority. In this sense, they are no different from the liberals they despise.

While Americans are themselves the most religious people in the western democratic world, they are content to keep their religious and secular lives separate and to not impose their beliefs on their neighbors. What these phony conservatives want is one of them, who will betray conservatism itself to suit their narrow social objectives. What they’ll get in supporting a third party is a liberal Democrat who will do exactly what they don’t want for four or even eight years. What they really need is a conservative- a small government, low tax, strong national defense conservative- who can lead our country and our party in to the future.

The Case Against Ronald Reagan

We’ve heard a lot of lip service to our nation’s 40th president by prospective Republican candidates since the official kickoff of the 2008 campaign (the day after the ’06 midterms) and a lot of promises to match conservative words with conservative action if elected. Given the thrashing Republicans took last November and the consensus among candidates for why they lost- abandoning conservatism- it’s not hard to see why appeals would be made to Ronald Reagan in order to make their candidacies look better. However, in so comparing, much is being misunderstood about the Reagan presidency and what exactly made him a great president. I would argue as David Brooks did some time earlier that a Reagan clone is not what America needs in 2008 despite what most Republicans appear to be yearning for.

It’s easy to see why conservatives, feeling betrayed by Bush’s second term missteps, would want one of their own to be the Republican standard-bearer next year. But what kind of conservative are they looking for exactly? There are actions and words in each of the declared (and undeclared) candidates which would qualify them as conservatives and likewise actions and words that would disqualify them. None of the candidates, official or otherwise, appears to be conservative on absolutely every issue as it would seem the base would demand.

Rudy Giuliani’s conservative economic and fiscal policies combined with his tough action on crime and 9/11 heroism is cancelled out by his stances on social issues and past ethical concerns. If conservatives are looking for a candidate with unquestioned and unwavering credentials on social issues they need look no further than Sam Brownback. His views on abortion would require a day’s journey to reach even the pro-life movement’s mainstream. Brownback’s candidacy fizzles along with other single-issue candidates when people discuss Iraq with the Senator or fiscal policy with Tom Tancredo. These second-tier, single-issue candidates are keeping themselves on the sidelines by taking unpopular positions on issues that are very divisive even within the party.

Ronald Reagan, by contrast, represents the consummate conservative to conservatives: someone whose (Protestant) Christian faith was as visible as the suit he was wearing; someone who advocated smaller government, lower taxes, and economic freedom and opportunity for all Americans; and someone who wasn’t afraid to get tough with our nation’s enemies. Conservatives identify aspects of the presidency and the man they particularly admire and are quick to point out that Reagan’s landslides prove that uncompromising conservatism can win in America. What they fail to mention or even realize is that Reagan’s victories occurred in a different time in a different political climate against very different candidates. Notice how no Democrat is hoping to become the next Walter Mondale or even Jimmy Carter.

What conservatives and Republicans should strive for instead is someone who, like Reagan, is the right person for the right time. That is what made Ronald Reagan a great president. His vision for America and drive for change were what Americans wanted twenty-five years ago, but things have changed dramatically since then. First and foremost, America is at war right now, and Reagan was certainly not a wartime president. America’s economic and social conditions are also quite different than they were in the 1980’s: massive foreign debt and housing crises have replaced double-digit inflation and high unemployment as the main economic threats on the horizon; stem cell research and gay marriage, both well outside the vocabulary of 1980’s social commentators, are now very much in the spotlight today. Republicans need a candidate who, while not 100% conservative on every issue, can suit today’s reality and deal with today’s problems instead of an ideal total conservative from a different era.

GOP Candidates Ditch Debates, Pwn n00bs

You can only be so stupid, but somehow the Democrats’ base has broken such boundaries yet again, and the current crop of Democrat presidential candidates seems all too willing to accommodate them. I refer of course to the much-ignored YouTube debates which allowed those with no business being involved in the American political system an outlet to vent their insanity. The debates were aired by CNN but the format was better suited for Nickelodeon. Serious questions were on the scarce side and, like a Michigan versus Penn State football game, there were no real winners. There were also few viewers, but still more than watched Live Earth.

This isn’t the first time Democrats have succeeded in making 18 to 25 year olds look ignorant, apathetic, and downright dumb. MTV’s Rock the Vote campaign failed spectacularly in its attempt to get their viewers to the polls even after the infamous “boxers or briefs” question asked to Bill Clinton (which somehow was still more articulate than about 90% of this week’s questions). Although candidates tried their best to answer the pressing concerns of the young with a straight face, (condoms in schools, drug legalization, and FCC indecency standards) the young still stayed away in droves.

After the debates, it’s hard to imagine youth showing up again this time around. Questions which survived the rigorous screening process included a song about taxes, more than a few obscenities, a re-launching of the 2000 election conspiracy, and an “are my ‘babies’ safe” question about gun control. One questioner asked each candidate to name something they liked and disliked about the candidate to their left. Not making the cut were questions asking candidates their favorite color and if Hillary would bone Howard Stern. Appropriately enough, the night’s most ridiculous question, posed by a man dressed as a snowman, was answered by the field’s most ridiculous candidate, Dennis Kucinich (this after eventually convincing security he was one of the candidates, not one of the bloggers).

In the wake of this week’s absurdity, it’s not hard to understand why Republican candidates who aren’t desperate for face time (John McCain and Ron Paul) have all declined to show up to the forthcoming YouTube debate in September. Mitt Romney summed up the candidates’ preference for sanity in debates by stating “I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman.” Eight years of Bill Clinton’s antics combined with this week’s nonsense should erase all question of a higher level held by Democrats.

To be fair, as fundamentally flawed as the YouTube debates were, the basic idea was well-intentioned: regular people asking candidates questions about issues they cared about. A better idea for Republicans would be to make joint appearances on a talk radio program (that is, if Democrats don’t succeed in shutting them down first) and answering questions from listeners. Callers would be screened as to prevent the baffling idiocy of YouTube, their questions would be far less likely to end in “OMFG, PWNED!” and questioners would probably at least hold a high school diploma. What’s more, there would actually be a listening audience this time.

It's All Just a Little Bit of History Repeating

While the Senate proves once again how worthless the new Congress really is, I stand watching and wondering what could happen if Democrats get their way and the US surrenders Iraq. Granted this means Senators now have something else to do late at night besides chasing escort girls, you would think they’d choose something more productive than selling their country down the river. Then again, as history has proven multiple times, that is what Democrats are best at. The left-wing fringe groups which own the Democratic Party are desperate to see America lose this war and to see history repeat itself.

It was a little more than thirty years ago when the lunatics took over the asylum known as the modern Democratic Party and committed themselves to losing America’s wars. In 1975, with the distraction of Watergate still in full public view, they succeeded in forcing America to tuck tail between their legs and retreat full scale from Vietnam. The images are still vivid enough with hundreds of desperate refugees attempting to cling to the departing helicopters. It was at that point when Americans turned off their television sets and forgot about the ugliness of the conflict. They, of course, were the lucky ones: the new communist regimes which popped up in the wake of liberal treason summarily slaughtered millions of people, the lion’s share in Cambodia.

The Americans’ withdrawal meant “Year Zero” for Pol Pot and Cambodia. Their triumphant ride through Phnom Penh was followed by an immediate evacuation to the countryside, the imposing of ancient first century Khmer culture and technology, and the shooting of anyone who resisted on the spot. As if that wasn’t enough, they imprisoned and tortured “microbes” of society until their victims came to believe the accusations against them. In all, two million people- one in four Cambodians- were executed or starved to death by one of the most evil regimes of the twentieth century. Cambodia itself may never recover. Americans tried to share the pain of those poor people some thousands of miles away, especially after Sam Waterston told us about it in 1984’s The Killing Fields. In the meantime, we forgot who was responsible for the Khmer Rouge coming to power. Today, Cambodia’s communist monsters live as free as America’s liberal enablers.

Thirty years later liberals still have not learned the lessons from history. They are as committed to America losing this war as they were to America losing in Vietnam. I’m already confounded as to what the national interest could be in losing a war without considering the consequences of our unconditional surrender. Without American soldiers to prop it up, Iraq’s fragile government would fall in a matter of days with the worst yet to come. Syria, Iran, and- oh yes- al-Qaeda would lock for control of the country in a battle with no winners. Instead of democracy and peace, terrorism and Islamist tyranny would gain a beachhead in the Middle East. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might make his dream of annihilating Israel and eradicating the Jews a reality without an American presence to stop him. Militant Islamist terrorists would see America for the paper tiger it is and would be undeterred in their quest to impose the 11th century on the world. Iraq poses yet one more danger than Vietnam in that withdrawing American soldiers didn’t bring Vietcong terrorists home with them.

It is well known that those who are ignorant of their history are doomed to repeat it. These Democrats are simply naïve if they believe mass genocide would not take place soon after our hasty surrender and departure. I shouldn’t have to remind you that there are three groups living in Iraq with a history of killing each other. Saddam Hussein initiated Sunni slaughters of Shiites and Kurds within recent memory. But that won’t happen again, will it? After all, if it’s one thing we can count on from militant Islamist terrorists, its restraint. No, if Democrats get their way and America hands over control of Iraq to al-Qaeda and if we see another Year Zero genocide, I hold those treasonous, enabling, left-wing Democrats as responsible for that genocide as the terrorists themselves.

Smith, New CRNC team thank supporters

In a blast e-mail to College Republicans across the nation, newly elected Executive Board members this afternoon sent their thanks to those who supported them:

Now that the convention is over, we wanted to take a moment to thank everyone who attended and those who supported the New CRNC. We were honored to receive such widespread support, a true mandate for positive reform to our organization. Thank you for placing your confidence in us and the ideas that we advanced.

We value your continued input as we transition into this new administration. There are no tickets or candidates any more. Everyone is on the same team, and we are all working towards the same goals. Your ideas and comments will improve and refine our efforts.

We stand on the edge of a bright future; these next two years hold much promise for our organization. We all have been called to serve a great cause and a great country; we are humbled that you have entrusted us to lead this powerful movement. With your help, this New CRNC will represent the best of what College Republicans can be.

The New CRNC Team

Chairman Charlie Smith, Co-Chairman Nick Miccarelli, Northeastern Vice-Chairman Mike Keough, Southern Vice-Chairman Kristy Cottrell, Midwestern Vice-Chairman Justin Smith, Western Vice-Chairman Zach Howell, Secretary Dan Carlson & Treasurer Esther Clark

And now for some entirely partial opinion on the matter:
It is important to note that the new Chairman believes there is a mandate for his ideas on reforming this organization, something that a few more people sticking to their guns last weekend in the nation's capital would have changed. Also, in a message claiming that the time for "tickets" and "candidates" has passed, it is signed as being from "The New CRNC Team". There is indeed much to be done in the next two years; let us only hope that they are better than the past two.

Congratulations to CR McCain backers

We here at Red State Rampage wish to extend our cordial congratulations to each state federation that had many of its members endorse the Presidential candidacy of Arizona Senator John McCain, and the many former state chairmen who worked so hard to grab the attention of the campaign staff. For starters, the people whom you all paid homage to on the campaign staff have all either been fired or quit. Secondly, McCain is fading faster than Barbaro's Triple Crown chances at last year's Preakness. The campaign is now broke and would like back its $1000 checks that it so flippantly passed out last fall to CR chapters like so much Halloween candy. It is also amusing that a campaign that has been as much about pork barrel spending as any other issue so quickly spent itself into debt. Our best guess is that they followed what is popularly known as the Gourley model (spending 19 million to raise 21 million, as was rumored last spring, or paying a company $400,000 to raise you $300 odd thousands).

So here is to you Michael Miltenberger, Dan Carlson, Blake Harris, and Vic Bailey. It looks like selling out to the frontrunner (wow, how fast time does fly!) won you the jackpot! A piece of advice: jump ship before they send you the bill.

Destroyers wreck Force, move on to ArenaBowl XXI

Earlier this afternoon, the hometown Columbus Destroyers of the Arena Football League defeated the 15-2 Georgia Force in their latest upset victory en route to Arena Bowl XXI. Matt Nagy, who was traded away by the Force in the offseason, led the Destroyers to a 66-56 triumph. It is great to see a Columbus professional sports team doing so well, and even greater to see them make such an underdog run in the playoffs. Columbus entered the playoffs with a 7-9 record and went on to best Tampa Bay on a last-second touchdown in the Wild Card Round. Last weekend, the Destroyers knocked off the Dallas Desperadoes, a team with an AFL-record 15 regular season wins, in the Divisional Playoffs by a score of 66-59.

Columbus will await the winner of the San Jose-Chicago matchup, and is the second team in the last two years to enter the playoffs at 7-9 and advance to the Arena Bowl. In 2006, the Chicago Rush, who Columbus could face in Arena Bowl XXI, accomplished the same feat. Other Columbus professional squads have also experienced recent success, with Major League Soccer's Columbus Crew on a month-long hot streak vaulting them into the upper half of the Eastern Conference and the Columbus Comets of the National Women's Football Assocation making a deep run in their own playoffs. The Comets play this evening in Nashville against the Pittsburgh Passion for the 2007 NWFA Championship.

Calling shenanigans

While no one will dispute the legitimacy of Charlie Smith's election as CRNC top dog this morning, several state chairmen, especially including Washington's Dan Brutoca, Iowa's Ben Johnson, and Arkansas' Bryant Davis, will have some serious explaining to do when they return to their federations, not to mention their predecessors. As a false wave of unity swept the convention floor following yesterday's passage of reform-minded amendments, one by one the states still considering abstinence from the election were cherry-picked by current CRNC Executive Board members and members of the NewCRNC (same as the old CRNC) team. Some state chairmen rolled over to have their bellies scratched with Credentials Committee slots, others leapt at the carrot of possibly holding regional training in their states, and still others were tempted by Charlie's good natured words with them. Simply amazing to the keen observer though is the fact that these individuals gave up months of fighting on principle only to abandon it for greener pastures. The rewards do not make any of them CR-rich either, as the Credentials slots are simply a one-year term (the next full-ticket election will be in July 2009) and regional training cannot possibly bring any greater benefit to the host state than dinner with Charlie Smith. Maybe NewCRNC should have just passed out candy to attendees instead, then these kids would have gotten some tangible nourishment from the swindle.

Iowa and Arkansas are especially befuddling cases simply due to the fact that each federation's immediate past Chairman was a candidate for their Regional Vice Chairman slot, running in both cases against NewCRNC foes. In Washington, Brutoca will surely have to answer to both Brent Ludeman, a two-term leader as well as leading national reformer, and Neil Uhrig, who was one of the first to speak out against outgoing Chairman Paul Gourley. Word out of the state is that Washington chapter chairmen were not even in favor of attending the convention, but that Brutoca was allowed to head the delegation to D.C. under the requirement that they abstain. If Taylor Burks can be impeached for merely firing an appointed officer, then such treachery can surely be so punished.

Returning Chairmen such as Wisconsin's Mary Ellen Burke and West Virginia's Brian Dayton deserve to be honored for sticking to their guns and not wavering under pressure to support a candidate of whom they do not approve. It seems that the mantle of the reform movement will pass from Ludeman and Brian Siler to such chairs as these, especially given the hands-off, live and let be approach that new leadership in Ohio is expected to take with regard to the CRNC.

In the final analysis, Siler and Ludeman attending the festivities may very well have produced a more organized opposition to Smith's victory, but their absence has hopefully allowed a new cadre of individuals to take the reigns and run with reform. After all, they are both on their way out, so we must have new leadership. In the end, the two Real Reform principals got both the amendments and the language that they desired, which always seemed to be their ultimate focus anyhow. Both are reportedly planning to move on from the CR arena and on to working in the larger grassroots political apparatus, whether it be on the local or national (think Presidential) scale. Their contributions to our organization should be remembered positively by all, and we wish the best of luck to them both as they get on with their careers.

One important note to make about the addition of electoral votes to Missouri, Alabama, and Colorado is that the case the three states made for extra votes was rooted in Facebook group memberships. Newly elected Midwest Vice Chairman Justin Smith argued that Missouran enrollment in CR Facebook groups was much greater than the number of verified members during the credentialing process. While this argument was successful, a proxy form submitted by the Ohio College Republican Federation for the Natl. Board Meeting yesterday was turned down by Chairman Gourley because there was no "Witness" signature. The kicker for my fellow Buckeyes is that no proxy procedure was outlined to the Board, so Gourley's decision was merely on a whim and without any basis or precedent. Granted, allegedly embezzling a few thousand dollars would also have been on a whim and without precedent, so this decision was merely business as usual.

Other absurdities in this election include CRNC Executive Director Ethan Eilon doing double duty as NewCRNC Campaign Manager and running a campaign based around reforming the very organization he was helping to run at the time. His successor as Manager was Blake Harris, who as a Credential Committee member ruled on the appeals for extra votes by his home state, Alabama, as well as Missouri and Colorado. All three states were supporters of his candidate, and he was Alabama's past chairman. Former Clinton Assistant Attorney General and 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick thinks that these were conflicts of interest.

The Reign Begins

Earlier this morning at the CRNC Convention, Colorado's Charlie Smith was elected to succeed Paul Gourley as Chairman of the CRNC and will serve a two-year term in the post. Also elected with him were Nick Miccarelli (Co-Chairman), Dan Carlson (Secretary), and Esther Clark (Treasurer).
The entire slate of Regional Vice Chair candidates was also victorious, with Michael Keough (Northeast), Kristy Cottrell (South), Justin Smith (Midwest), and Zach Howell (West) all easily winning election.

RSR to add Podcasting of posts

Given that a good friend of RSR is pursuing a career in broadcasting, we will begin to offer each and every post in audio form for your podcasting pleasure. At some point within the next two weeks we will make the grand rollout of this feature, which will be unique certainly within the CR blogosphere, and rare as well within the greater Ohio community of bloggers. Details are being worked out at the moment, and more will follow as it becomes more concrete. Also on the table are possible audio interviews with CR figures down the road, and maybe even some real politicians and politicos.

Real Reform principals issue statement on amendments

As any College Republican who is active within the national scene now knows, the full slate of amendments were passed today at the CRNC National Board Meeting after weeks of anxious hand-wringing by many who originally saw Charlie Smith's pledge to bring his supporters to the "Yea" column as an unlikely promise to be fulfilled. Real Reform principals Brian Siler and Brent Ludeman, both notably absent from the nation's capital this weekend, have issued a statement of thanks to their fellow CRs for working to pass the important measures.

"The amendments passed today are the result of six plus months of hard work guided by the bold principles and recommendations outlined in Real Reform. We see these amendments as a giant victory for this organization. We are excited that Real Reform was the genesis for the changes that will shape the future of our organization for generations to come. Thank you to all those who helped spearhead this effort and those who voted on the amendments today.

Reform does not end here. Make no mistake about it, the CRNC faces real problems that demand real solutions. The well-being of our organization has been sacrificed for political expediency and self-glorification too often in recent memory. Repeated scandals that never seem to end have undermined the credibility of our organization. We have lost our way.

In order to enact true, lasting reform in the CRNC, the culture of our organization and type of people we put in power must change. The procedural changes and safeguards put in place by the amendments passed today mean very little if the people entrusted to uphold them do not share the values they reflect. While we recognize that change does not occur overnight, we will continue to push for safeguards and individuals that work to eliminate corruption, increase accountability, improve transparency and put the grassroots first. We see today as just the first step.

Thank you again for all of your work in supporting these amendments and the Real Reform movement. Without your continued support, the changes enacted today would not have been possible."

Speculation about potential opposition to Charlie Smith's imminent election continues to foment, but one CR from Ohio noted that he has plans to meet with Siler in Columbus on Saturday, which would seem to put the kibash on such rumors of he and Ludeman riding into D.C. on white horses. Other sources from within the state have also confirmed that with the Midwest Vice-Chairman election all but over for Iowa's Bobby Kaufmann following Minnesota's decision to back Justin Smith, the decision was made to save the funds for an expanded field program come this fall. While some have speculated that Kaufmann could not win without the votes from Ohio, it was indeed the Minnesotan move that sounded the death knell. Sources have also informed RSR over the past few months that the ultimate priority for Siler became the passage of amendments, which seems to be given credence by the absence of any organized opposition ticket at this convention.

Ohio, Washington virtual no-shows at coronation

Two of the state federations viewed nationally as leaders within the CRNC's reform movement are largely absent from the early festivities of the biennial convention taking place this weekend in the nation's capital. With no real possibility at this late hour of a challenge to Charlie Smith's upcoming coronation, it is really no surprise that either of the states, or their sometimes enigmatic former Chairmen, Brian Siler and Brent Ludeman, are absent without leave. While the elections are not the only reason to show up, they certainly are the biggest motivator of attendance. With the election results hardly in doubt, even in each of the "Regional Vice-Chairman" contests, the urgency of appearing drops considerably.

Eagerness for Ohioans to attend the 2007 edition of the CRNC Convention surely did wane after a most disappointing Credentials Report back in the spring that left Ohio with fewer than half of the thirteen delegates that it had expected to receive. On the whole, the number of electoral votes allotted were down from 2005, but members of the Ohio College Republican Federation were caught by surprise at the low number of delegates their state was awarded. After a banner year of recruitment and a hard-fought victory for at least partially electronic credential verification, the expected number was 13 votes. While Ohio could still receive an additional vote if their appeal is successful, it still will fall far short.

Sources out of Ohio have noted that the savings from not sending a full delegation to the convention will allow for at least one extra field representative from the OCRF this fall. In taking a brief look at this fall's electoral slate in the Buckeye state, it is not lost on this College Republican that Columbus and Cincinnati both have major municipal elections come November. Extra feet on the ground organizing and driving out the grassroots volunteers that CRs can ably provide seems certainly to be a welcome asset for party leaders in both Franklin and Hamilton Counties.

Live Earth Celebrities to the Rest of Us: Stop Being You!

Today is another one of those days where the performing elites will assemble on various parts of the planet in support of a cause they know little to nothing about. In so doing they can blame George Bush for whatever it is they’re playing for either not doing enough about it or causing the problem entirely. Take a little from Column “A” and a little from Column “B” for the cause-de-jour, global warming. Yes, just in time for Al Gore’s third unsuccessful presidential run, the superstars of the performing world will bring global warming to our attention by traveling 222,623 miles between them and dumping several tons of fuel (in that it’s been several years since the Battle of Hastings) in the atmosphere and chastising the rest of us for our wasteful ways of life.

Global warming represents one of the most prominent pillars of the faith to the religion of Liberalism and its practice can best be described as “do as I say, not as I do.” The entertainers performing today are hardly environmental stewards, and the concert’s primary organizer is nothing less than a sinner. Gore’s “carbon footprint,” for instance, would require size 23 shoes. His mansion in Tennessee uses more electricity in a month than the average American household does in a year. His natural gas bill wasn’t chump change for the rest of us either: $1,080. What’s more, after making his movie in which he urged Americans to drastically reduce their energy consumption by using less electricity and gas at home (or else!), his personal energy consumption increased! The private jet he’ll be taking to the concert doesn’t exactly run on switch grass either.

It would be interesting if a portion of the proceeds for Live Earth went to cleaning up the environmental damage caused by holding the concerts in the first place. Celebrities are going to be traveling thousands of miles to get to these locations and I guarantee you not one will be taking the city bus. For that matter, they won’t be carpooling or even taking an airliner like the rest of us are told to. The damage to the ozone layer caused by all that fuel from each of their private jets should shame any environmentally and intellectually honest celebrity from coming to this event. This is in addition to other damage inflicted upon the planet such as the Gore-gantuan energy costs and piles of trash left by spectators. Let Melissa Etheridge try and blame that one on FEMA! Of course, this concert isn’t about being honest with the commoners or even being consistent. This is about, like, the environment, man! Oh, and George Bush doesn’t care about black people.

Personally, as I’m not being forced to watch it (yet), I’d rather exercise my right as a consumer while it still exists and watch something else that doesn’t insult me or make me feel guilty about watching it. Like a Lifetime movie. This is yet another excursion in to the world of public policy that celebrities feel entitled to dictate to us about by simply being celebrities. They take up the cause regardless of whether they know anything about it or whether they’re actually part of the problem itself. The likes of John Mayer and Madonna are no more qualified to talk about climate change than George Bush is to talk about music. Wait, who was it that was trying to tell who how to do their job again?

The Old College Try

YAF recently released their list of the Top Ten Campus Conservatives, and a couple good friends of RSR made an appearance on the list. Bowling Green's Dan Lipian, who is currently serving in his second term as BGSU CR Chairman and in his first term as Ohio College Republican Federation Secretary, was picked for his efforts with last year's 9/11: Never Forget Project and his phenomenal work in bringing conservative activist and musical legend Ted Nugent to Bowling Green. In an aside, RSR attended the evening with Nugent back in March, and it was absolutely packed. On one of the most liberal college campuses in Ohio, Dan and his great group of CRs like Co-Chairman Brian Kutzley packed the 1,000 seat auditorium within 50 seats of capacity.

URI College Republican Chairman Ryan Bilodeau, who is also serving currently as Rhode Island CR Chairman, also was named to the prestigious list. Bilodeau raised many eyebrows on campus with his WHAM (White Heterosexual American Male) Scholarship back last fall, and he went toe to toe with his university for the survival of College Republicans on URI's campus. Ryan has also spent much time coordinating independent student support for Mitt Romney, and was featured on a panel at CPAC with other young conservative leaders. Keep up the good work gents!

Knee High by the Fourth of July

With just ten days left in the mockery that is the campaign to be CRNC Chairman, the river of crap is rising with a nasty riptide that threatens to bring the whole organization crashing down upon itself. The organization we know and love, New CRNC, which is merely the name Charlie Smith has bestowed upon his ticket, is merely an accomplice after the fact at best and fully complicit with this current mess at worst.
This past month's events, shocking as they may seem to many, come as no surprise to us here at Red State Rampage. When we last opined, we spoke of a growing buyer's remorse, an outgoing Chairman in Paul Gourley who had lost any semblance of control, and a candidate in Charlie Smith who had yet to define himself once and for all. Now that all of these things have come to pass, many times over in some cases, it is very clear that someone must speak up once again.
As Truth Caucus moves on to more grown up topics, such as Paris Hilton's latest exploits, there emerges an ever growing void of hard news and solid opinion on today's CRNC, an ever dulling light shining into the cracks and crevices of this organization, the College Republicans. One thing is imminently recognizable, though: it is high time to hop back on the horse here at RSR and stir the pot once more. With that, we leave you for the next few hours to await the glorious return, a campaign of shock and awe like none seen before.

In Wake of Amnesty, Elites Get Mad, Plot to Get Even

Despite what you will hear from the mainstream media and the leadership of both parties, yesterday was a triumph. Ted Kennedy, John McCain, Harry Reid, AND George Bush’s immigration amnesty bill went down in flames Thursday when a crucial vote to cut off debate was defeated 53-46. Thursday represents a defeat for the Republican and Democrat party bosses and the elites they have sold their souls to in favor of this fatally-flawed legislation (big business, big labor, and big La Raza come to mind). It is a victory for everyone else (you know, the “loud folks”), and before we go any further, kudos are in high order for Senators- Republican and Democrat- who did the right thing and voted against their leadership and against cloture. Don’t expect the elites in the wake of this knock down to stay down, however.

This bill represents more than any other in recent memory the visible divide between the people’s elected representatives and the people who do the electing. Just take a look at the recent Gallup poll of Congress, which shows the lowest approval rating in the history of the Gallup poll itself. The bill failed principally thanks to an open rebellion among the American people, mostly- but not exclusively- on the right whose message was reverberated on the alternative media. Groups like the Heritage Foundation conducted cost studies placing enforcement (which begs the question that this bill could have been enforced) in the trillions of dollars. Bloggers like Michelle Malkin shed more light on the bill than many Senators would have liked and exposed it for the “come-and-get-it” amnesty it was. Talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham not only offered their views on the bill but aired their listeners’ concerns on the matter. Most importantly, ordinary citizens placed so many phone calls to their Senators that the phone system was overloaded and had to be shut down.

Their response was visible enough at first and will become even more so after their, umm, Cuatro de Julio trips back home. Many in support of the bill were shocked to find that their constituents did not share their enthusiasm for a porous if not absent border and a free pass for 20 million people. How did these public servants, these elected representatives react? By name-calling. Senator Graham’s “loud folks” was just the tip of the iceberg. Senators dropped terms like “racist,” “bigot,” and the slightly-dated “know-nothing” to describe their concerned constituents. Senator Feinstein declared that she had never before received such hate-filled mail from voters who didn’t want to live in a balkanized, bilingual state. Just yesterday, Majority Leader Harry Reid reported receiving a negative letter from a constituent which he promptly turned over to Capitol Police. I guess petitioning the government for a redress of grievances is grounds for a criminal investigation these days.

And what good is petitioning without a means to petition? Frustrated elitists on both sides of the aisle have now set their sights on the vehicle they see as most responsible for shutting down their amnesty bill: political talk radio. The left has been hinting since before they took power at bringing back the unconstitutional “Fairness Doctrine” to silence the voice of conservative opposition on the airwaves. Now it seems they’re not only serious about it, but they’ve got Republican support! Just ask Senator Foghorn Hairspray (R-Mississippi) who declared “talk [ah say, talk] radio is running this country and we’ve got to do something about it, [see?]” The “Fairness Doctrine” is gathering steam (or is that hot air?) with Senators Feinstein, Kerry, Durbin, Hillary, and others expressing their support. It was even reported that Democrats told wavering Republican Senators yesterday that by the time they returned from their angry constituents, they would have already “taken care” of talk radio.

It is now becoming apparent that hell hath no fury like an elite scorned, and it’s not hard to see why they’re reacting in this way. Congress and the President hold approval ratings which rival those of the Adams administration, and back then they countered the will of the people with the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made it a crime to criticize President Adams and the Federalist Party’s government. Several members of Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans were thrown in jail for doing just that. The American people wouldn’t stand for such tyranny then and the Federalists were thrown out in 1800. Now, faced with bipartisan elitism, the end result is much less clear. The American public is quite clearly mad as hell at both parties, and the elites will more than likely try to silence opposing viewpoints in the media and re-impose the “Fairness Doctrine” to maintain their power. However, the two-party system in place in America ensures a result similar to the 1981 NBA Playoffs: somebody’s got to win, even if nobody’s paying attention.

With Dems in Left Field, Republicans Should Play to the Center

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s termination of what can best be described as a brief and politically-convenient fling with the Republican Party ought to surprise no one. After all, he had been hinting for quite some time at an independent run for the White House next year. While his status as a Republican allowed him to ride his predecessor’s coattails to become mayor of America’s largest city, he fit in about as well with most in the party as I do in a room full of drunk coeds. His exit from the Republican Party is important not for what it means to his future but to the future of the party’s rapidly shrinking center.

Whatever you may think of his real compatibility with the Republican Party, Mike Bloomberg represents a certain wing of the party that is struggling to maintain their place at the table. These are the descendants of Rockefeller, Scranton, Nixon, and Ford who are at odds for being moderate or even liberal on certain issues that have defined the party platform since the 1980’s. They are pro-choice, pro-green deficit hawks who often defy their more conservative members on stem cell research and gay marriage. The losers in the schism that doomed the party in the election of 1964, they are now the ones who, for better or worse, argue for “big tent” inclusion against right-wing extremism.

The election of 2006 didn’t help GOP moderates whose ranks were further depleted by retirement and defeat. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, the House’s lone openly-gay Republican retired, Michigan’s Joe Schwarz was beaten in his primary, and Connecticut’s Nancy Johnson- a founding member of the Republican Main Street Partnership- was knocked off on election night. She, however, was not alone: six other moderate Republican Congressmen and Senator Lincoln Chafee joined Johnson’s involuntary return to the private sector. The fate of elected Republican moderates is not nearly as dire however as those who do the electing. This became apparent in the recent primary debate in Manchester, New Hampshire when a self-proclaimed moderate asked candidates what they would do to reach out to the party’s center. The recent midterms further illustrate how Karl Rove’s strategy of getting out the base on Election Day, while successful through three elections, has led to the party moderates being ignored or abandoned.

Perhaps the most intriguing question through all of this is: what should happen if this group of moderates resurfaces and is successful in nominating one of its own to the presidency? Rudy Giuliani is the current Republican favorite and possesses a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun control record (though you wouldn’t know it now by asking him). Many on the right are cringing at the possibility of a Republican candidate who would uphold Roe v. Wade, or at the very least not go out of his way to try to overturn it. What then should happen if the two (or even three with Bloomberg) presidential candidates are all moderate or liberal on social issues? Would this lead to a Sam Brownback or a Pat Buchanan-like candidate bolting the GOP and running as an independent himself? It’s not nearly as far-fetched as it may at first seem: back in 2000 a Pat Robertson autodialer warned South Carolina Republicans not to vote for anybody if John McCain won the nomination.

As history (1912, 1964, and 1976) has shown, factional schism is poison to the Republican Party. It would seem in a race of such consequence that the Republicans have all hands on deck to beat whoever the Democrats come up with. I shouldn’t have to say again that the Democrats have a distinct advantage at this early point in the campaign. What’s more, 2006 proves the Republicans can’t simply rely on their conservative base alone to win, especially with that base becoming increasingly angry with the party itself. Furthermore, Republicans can no longer count on Democrats to beat themselves (or herself) and will have to win 2008 on their own merits with a candidate who is more than he is not. If Republicans hope to win with the right it needs first to reconcile with its center.

GOP Set to Party Like it’s 1993?

While I was in Canada I mentioned to a friend that I wanted to see Meech Lake, some 25 kilometers northwest of Ottawa. This was the site of the now infamous Meech Lake Accord, where Prime Minister Brian Mulroney tried to get Quebec to ratify the Canada Act in 1987. I told him that I wanted to see just where the Progressive Conservative Party ceased to exist as a national party, losing all but two of its 169 seats in the 1993 federal election. He then asked if I wanted to take a trip this summer to the Mexican border, where the Republican Party will cease to exist as a national party.

The more one looks at this ill-fated and even worse-conceived immigration bill the more it tends to resemble the Meech Lake Accord for the Republican Party. Both initially enjoyed the support of more than one party, both were hailed as compromises and the result of intense negotiations, both were geared at securing a certain group in an electoral coalition, and both (ironically) involved immigration in some form. Most importantly, however, both have severely alienated their party’s conservative base. In the case of Canada, this meant that more than half of the electorate switched parties in the 1993 elections. What’s more, the electoral coalition Mulroney built in his 1984 and 1988 landslides collapsed: Quebec nationalists voted for the new Bloc Quebecois while western conservatives chose Preston Manning’s Reform Party. Everyone else voted for the Liberals, who ended up winning big.

While there is as yet no third party or Manning-like figure to play Pac Man to the GOP’s traditional support, they do face a real threat from a rejuvenated Democratic Party. Today’s Democrats are proving what a difference two years can make with everything seemingly going their way. They have two rock star candidates for the presidency, the momentum of the 2006 midterm wave behind them, and a very unpopular lame duck president the Republicans have to stay away from to hope to win. Put simply, at this very early point in the campaign, the race is the Democrats’ to lose.

President Bush and a group of Senate RINOs aren’t making things any easier. To the contrary, they have taken to blaming “loud folks,” (you know, the ones who put them in power back in 2004) for their bill stalling in the Senate. They have taken to name-calling with “nativist” and “racist” being thrown around by Republicans to describe their most dedicated supporters less than three years ago. They have taken to praising Senate Democrats for their efforts in trying to push this bill forward against the efforts of its more conservative members. If the likes of Lindsey Graham think Democrats are so great for their efforts on this bill, then that’s exactly who his constituents might vote for in 2008.

There are even more immediate consequences for this bill, especially if your name is John McCain. While even being associated with the bill should hurt his campaign enough in the eyes of Republican primary voters, being a co-sponsor with Ted Kennedy could sink it. Even McCain admits it’s not a bill he would have written, which again seems curious when he’s a co-sponsor. If there are any beneficiaries on the right side of the aisle its Rudy and Romney for blasting the bill while proving they are more than single-issue candidates like Tom Tancredo.

While things aren’t nearly as dire for the Republicans now as they were for the Progressive Conservatives in 1993, there are some ominous signs on the horizon as well as some common mistakes in the past. President Bush’s second term can most-favorably be described as a series of unfortunate events. The nomination of Harriet Miers, the Charlie-Foxtrot surrounding Hurricane Katrina, and this current immigration bill stand out as some of the more devastating blows to his administration, to say nothing about the Iraq War. All we need now is a Goods and Services Tax to seal the Republicans’ fate.

By contrast, President Bush has no chosen successor as Prime Minister Mulroney did, and that’s probably a good thing. Mulroney’s heir apparent Kim Campbell was so inept a campaigner and her former boss was so unpopular that Liberal activists met her with chants of “Kim, Kim, you’re just like him!” wherever she went. Desperation time set in with the PC’s airing an ad for 24 hours showcasing Jean Chrétien’s Bell’s palsy. The gift of historical hindsight gives the Republicans roughly 18 months to change their fate for the better. The alternative is to be called upon to “bring out yer dead” on election night.

Tonight at the Reagan Derby

Historic Reagan Downs in Simi Valley, California will play host to the most tedious ninety minutes in politics, the first leg of the 55^th Run for the White House! Hello everybody, I’m Bob Costas proud to be with you today, mint julep in hand. The initial field is set today on a gorgeous day in California, and the track is running fast. However, many longtime followers of this race are not as enthusiastic about the field as they have been in races past. For more, let’s go down to Tom Hammond for a look at the lineup and the current odds.

Thanks, Bob. What some have called a weak field this season is due to take its first lap around the track where the great Ronaldus Magnus ended his final journey. Each candidate this year is almost certain to run or even look like Ronaldus Magnus and try to remind voters of him. Notable scratches this year include Ordering Law and Grich Blitz, both of whom could be late entries in other legs of the Run for the White House. The early frontrunner, out of New York, is Gracie Mansion in Lane One with 3-1 odds. Barbara Ann is in Lane Two with 7-2 odds. In Lane Three, a long shot facing 20-1 odds, is Tommy Boy. California’s own Armed Service is in Lane Four at 22-1. Salt Lake is in Lane Five at 4-1 odds. In Lane Six is Brownback Mountain at 15-1. At 9-1 in Lane Seven is Razorhuck, he’s from the same state as Slick Willie, who we all know won the Triple Crown in 1992 and 1996. Chairman More is in Lane Eight at 9-2 odds. Lane Nine hold’s the race’s dark horse, Doctor No, who is facing 50-1 odds. Finally, in Lane Ten is Gringo Star at 35-1. Now let’s go down to the track with Chris Matthews and the call to the post.

The candidates are entering the gates and the most tedious ninety minutes in politics is about to begin! There’s the call to post . . . and they’re off! Gracie Mansion is first out of the gate with a steady start on the Iraq War with a field of candidates behind him. Salt Lake running smoothly is catching up and Barbara Ann is covering his best ground at a furious pace! There’s a group of candidates behind the leader trying to catch up with Armed Service drawing attention to his experience, Brownback Mountain sidestepping, and Gringo Star tripping up every few steps. Far behind there’s Doctor No who seems to be running the other way! The candidates are turning the first corner now and jockeying for position on the War on Terror. Gracie Mansion is still in front with a slight lead over Salt Lake who is running smoothly and Barbara Ann who’s frustratingly trying to catch up. They’ve all got a comfortable lead on the rest of the pack who seem to be going nowhere.

We now head in to the straightaway on values with a down-the-line question on abortion. Brownback Mountain leads the charge of candidates to the right and picks up the pace. Barbara Ann runs softer but more dependably this time and Salt Lake tries shifting toward the middle of the track. Here’s Gracie Mansion still in the lead trying to shift from the left to the right and back again. And Gracie Mansion starts to stumble as he charges in a different direction from the pack! They continue on the values path and in to the corner on stem cell research. Brownback Mountain continues to surge to the right of the track, Barbara Ann running dependably in the middle, and Gracie Mansion trying to regain his early pace. Now it’s Salt Lake in the lead as his steady pace overtakes Gracie Mansion!

Down the stretch they come as bloggers from a left-wing website throw in obstacles to try and trip up the candidates! Salt Lake slows and turns to avoid a poorly-thrown question on hating America. Gracie Mansion leaps over a difficult road block on the difference between Sunnis and Shiites and regains his pace, but still trails Salt Lake! Here’s Doctor No returning to respectability with a boost on abolishing the IRS, but he’s still far behind. Salt Lake continues his smooth stride down the final straightaway and Salt Lake has won the Reagan Derby! It looks like Gracie Mansion will place and Barbara Ann will show. The first leg of the 55^th Run for the White House is over, with many, many more to go and the field certain to change with each event along the way. We thank those who attended tonight and the dozens of viewers who tuned in and watched at home! For Tom Hammond and Bob Costas, I’m Chris Matthews. Good night from Reagan Downs!

For Conservatives it’s Not Difficult Being Green

Once again, the Republican Party faces a time for choosing. These choices on important issues are becoming more numerous as the days tick down toward the 2008 presidential election and also more opportunistic as the party finds itself in the minority in both houses of Congress. We’re already seeing the impact of abortion on the presidential campaign some 18 months before the convention will chose a nominee who may or may not be pro-choice. The Democrats have been hammering home the issue of the environment and thus far have succeeded in defining the issue on their terms. So today, Republicans have a choice as to how to combat the left on the environment and global climate change: they can either continue to claim that global warming is a myth (as the pack of talk radio hosts does) and not offer any solutions of their own or they can offer a genuine alternative to what Czech President Vaclav Klaus has called the greatest threat to human freedom since communism (and he would know!).

If you follow what the Democrats have been saying since Al Gore was putting voters to sleep instead of moviegoers, the Earth is warming at an uncontrollable and unnatural rate because of yuppies driving SUV’s. Therefore, the only possible solution to keep the seas from drowning Florida (which may or may not be such a bad idea) is to drastically change our economy and transform human habits and human nature. Tomorrow’s May Day demonstrations should remind us all how similar left-wing experiments in social engineering turned out. Conservatives are right to denounce proposals like limiting ourselves to one square of toilet paper per trip as draconian and without any basis in reality (as it turned out, it was), but so far they haven’t been offering any alternatives. They have been on this issue as they criticized Democrats three years ago of being on every other issue. They have done nothing but oppose and attack while offering no ideas of their own. This has allowed liberals to characterize Republicans as against the environment which is making it easier for them to advance their radical agenda.

Instead, Republicans can offer a package of common sense policies which balance environmental stewardship with preserving human freedom. There are simple things every one of us can do that can both save the planet and save money that don’t require increasingly ridiculous regulation and bureaucracy. Simply encouraging wiser consumer choices would not only resonate better with the American people than would finger-wagging but would also promote a sound environmental policy without destroying the market economy. If consumers realized, for example, that compact fluorescent light bulbs last longer and use less energy than incandescent bulbs (and cost a lot less in the long run), a ban would not be necessary. Homeowners are already able to receive a tax incentive for replacing their old furnaces with more efficient models. Perhaps most importantly, Republicans need to champion an energy policy that weans Americans off oil instead of taking their cars away from them. Government can cooperate with energy companies instead of penalizing them and come up with alternative sources of fuel that allow Americans to keep the cars they love and depend on.

Conservatives have a real opportunity to redefine the entire debate on climate change itself. Instead of simply denying it exists and dismissing their claims as Chicken Little hysteria, conservatives can fight the intellectual dishonesty of the left and identify what really is at issue: who or what is causing global climate change and which common sense policies should be implemented to best deal with it. To be perfectly clear, the Kyoto Protocol is NOT in any way rooted in common sense. The United States Senate knew how ridiculous the treaty was in 1997 when they voted 95-0 to not merely reject it but to not even consider it. Other socialist schemes such as carbon trading simply do not work at reducing emissions but change who is emitting them. The ozone doesn’t care which smokestack the pollution comes from, but the global left doesn’t realize this either. Conservatives have a real shot in the next year and a half to take on the left on the environment and offer their own solutions. To do otherwise is to invite toilet paper rations.

Remember Gays, Only YOU Can Prevent Forest Fires!

There have been a lot of images, statements, and actions in the wake of last week’s massacre at Virginia Tech that ought to make your blood boil. Within hours of the horror, the far-left blame machine went in to full speed screaming that President Bush was responsible for the carnage because he refused to push for a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban some three years ago. Somehow it slipped their minds that Seung-Hui Cho used handguns to commit his slaughter, not AK-47’s. They cried out for tougher gun laws claiming gun control might have prevented the rampage. In a spectacular bit of irony, the Mayor of Hiroshima demonstrated how effective Japan’s strict gun laws worked when he was shot to death the day after the Virginia Tech massacre.

They furthered their amendment-per-week attack on the United States Constitution by braying for the repeal of the Second Amendment (by the way, Harry Reid intends to announce the quartering of American troops in red state small towns). The media did their part to infuriate their viewers by sensationalizing the brutal murder of 32 Virginia Tech students and teachers and by showing Cho’s videotaped vitriol. In so doing, they gave Cho a posthumous forum for his rage and provided inspiration to potential adolescent mass murderers across the country. Not to be outdone in making a terrible tragedy that much worse, the one and only Fred Phelps and his followers in the Westboro Baptist Church announced last week that they intended to protest the funerals of these 32 victims.

Phelps blames the slaughter on the university itself for its leniency toward homosexuals (i.e. treating them like human beings) and said those killed last week are in hell for not being “true Christians.” They claim Cho was sent by God on a mission to punish those he killed for their tolerance of homosexuals. Also, they claim Cho is with his victims in hell because he broke God’s commandment not to kill. In case that confused you, Shirley Phelps-Roper cleared it up in an interview with CBS: “he is in hell, but he was also fulfilling the word of God.” I’ll give you another moment to think about that one.

These actions and statements are as bigoted as they are idiotic, and are to be expected from a group made famous for its protest of military funerals and for its websites “GodHatesFags.com” and “GodHatesAmerica.com.” Phelps and his followers (mostly relatives through blood or marriage) believe each soldier’s death is God’s punishment for America’s tolerance of gays, and Phelps even made overtures to Saddam and paid tribute to his regime before the war. They also praise disasters around the world, both natural and artificial, and blame them on gays (AIDS, 9/11, the Asian Tsunami, and Hurricane Katrina are just a few recent high-profile examples). They even go after other churches and denominations as well as the likes of Billy Graham for refusing to preach their hatred of homosexuals. They refer to Graham as a “hell-bound false prophet.” Last October they also planned protests for the funerals of those killed in a horrific Amish schoolhouse shooting, armed with signs calling the grade school girls “whores.”

Thankfully, this exercise in shame was narrowly averted by radio talk show host Mike Gallagher who offered the group his entire program this Tuesday in exchange for a canceling of their protests. He made the same invitation in order to stop the protests of the Amish funerals. While he could not disagree with the Wesboro Baptist Church more strongly, Gallagher believes as I do that giving them airtime is preferable for these grieving families as well as the Blacksburg community who can simply turn off their radios. Gallagher is a Catholic and thus a target of Phelps’ message of hate as I would assume I am for being an Episcopalian. The Episcopal Church as you recall recently began ordaining gay clergy.

I personally disagree with this and other policies within the church, but that hardly means that our gay priests and bishops (as well as those who elected and ordained them) are doomed to eternal damnation in hell. If anything, hell should be just as full of homosexuals as it would be liars, thieves, adulterers, idolaters, and the Godless. Even if homosexuality is a sin, Christians are taught to hate the sin but love the sinner. Phelps and his ilk do not follow this belief in forgiveness and I dare say they are the ones who are not “true Christians.” They are to Christianity what Al-Qaeda is to Islam and should be discredited and condemned by Christians and non-Christians alike.

Campus Left Reveals “Obsession” of Their Own

DISCLAIMER: This entry is about radical leftists, particularly those centered on college campuses. Most liberals are peaceful. They are reasonably committed to democracy and freedoms found in the First Amendment and a few like America. A couple of them even told me the United States ought to be able to defend itself when attacked. This entry is not about those two liberals.

Last week the South Campus Gateway Drexel theater played host to “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.” The movie was surprisingly well-attended and perhaps even more surprisingly co-sponsored by the College Democrats. The film portrayed the threat posed by radical Islam worldwide, often doing so through prominent use of Nazi imagery and comparisons with the warning of history repeating itself. However, the message was not as important in this case as how it was received by the audience Wednesday night. As could be expected on this and other campuses, the screening was attended not just by students interested in learning more about the threat posed by radical Islam or those seeking further discussion of the issue, but by agenda-peddling radicals who are at the very least sympathetic with and at the very worst supportive of these terrorists, their views, and their actions.

Several members of the crowd gathered in the back of the theater talked, snickered, and even laughed out loud as points were being raised during the screening that were not consistent with their worldview. Indeed, their true thoughts on the matter were brought out later during a moderated discussion. These radicals raised the same points and asked the same questions that we’ve frankly come to expect from them: “this wouldn’t be happening if George Bush wasn’t elected President/if America hadn’t invaded Iraq/if Israel didn’t exist!” You the reader should feel insulted that I should have to tell you that terrorist attacks committed by radicalized Muslims- and militant Islam itself- predate the current war in Iraq, the Presidency of George W. Bush, and the establishment of the State of Israel.

Keep in mind we’ve seen this group before. For anyone who did not stay on campus during the war in Lebanon, these agitators were gathered on 15th and High standing in solidarity with Hezbollah and protesting Israel’s “war crimes.” They go above and beyond the “Blame America First” crowd described by the late Jeane Kirkpatrick. They hate Israel just as much as America and shovel just as much blame for terrorism on the “Zionists” as they do on Americans. Mercifully, one troublemaker who was disrespecting the moderator and insulting the intelligence of the audience was kicked out of the theater. What’s more, criticism of the film and its central message was not limited to the left-wing fringe but was even levied by members of the co-sponsoring College Democrats.

“I felt the movie itself was propaganda, and the movie itself shows propaganda as fueling hatred, so it’s hypocritical,” Ingrid Babri, minority affairs director of the Ohio State College Democrats told The Lantern. This should tell you everything you need to know about her party’s stance on terrorism. Indeed, Michael Moore was shown during the film delivering perhaps a far more articulate view from the more mainstream left in this country: “there is no terrorist threat.” The more liberals on the blogs demand their Democrat servants in Congress press for a troop withdrawal tomorrow if not sooner, the more those Democrats continue to undermine the President’s prosecution of the War on Terror (even attempting to ban the use of the phrase), and the more assertive the left becomes in their explicit desire for America to fail in this war, the more apparent it becomes that liberals either don’t know about radical Islamic terrorism and the threat it faces to themselves, to America, and to all of western civilization or they flat out don’t care. In this case, the difference is irrelevant.

Returning to the film itself, “Obsession” describes through interviews from experts on the subject as well as first-hand video from the Arab world the threat Islamic terrorism poses to the world. Indeed, people like Hassan Nasrallah and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are quite clear in their goals to wipe out the infidels- the “kafirs” as they’re called- and impose an 11th century-style Islamic state on the world. There were men throughout history who thought as they did, who sought to impose a new way of life on the world and slaughter those who stood in their way. Adolph Hitler was one of them, and was featured prominently in the film. Stalin and Mao also killed millions in their attempts to remake society in their twisted image. Today’s terrorists and their state sponsors are evil men who cannot be reasoned with, cannot be talked to, and cannot be taken lightly. Unfortunately, the quest continues on college campuses like this one to make half the country realize this.

Gullible’s Travels

How many foreign policies does the United States have? I found myself asking that question as Queen Nancy led a delegation to suck up to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. The current President of the United States (who traditionally is responsible for crafting American foreign policy) has said he won’t talk to Syria because they are a state sponsor of terrorism (including Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad), they continue to dominate the politics of Lebanon, and they are as committed to the destruction of the State of Israel as they ever were. Oh, and they are also supporting and supplying the insurgency currently killing our soldiers in next-door Iraq. The recent trip by Her Majesty, and the show she put on for the benefit of the local media, demonstrates the left’s continuing commitment to the cause of appeasement. Then again, Neville Chamberlain never put on a pair of lederhosen when he met with Herr Hitler.

Since apparently one anti-Semitic terror-sponsoring Middle Eastern dictator wasn’t enough, the Queen’s entourage is now considering a trip to Iran. That’s right, they want to have “a dialogue” with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the same man who said he wants to wipe Israel off the map, the same man who called the Holocaust a myth (and even held a meeting of the world’s leading anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers on the subject), and the same man who is also responsible for supporting and supplying the insurgency currently killing our soldiers in next-door Iraq. Perhaps the most ironic part of this whole proposed business is that one of Queen Nancy’s fellow travelers Tom Lantos (D-CA), who said he would get on a plane and meet with Ahmadinejad today, is himself a Holocaust survivor! Was one Holocaust not enough, Congressman?

In the midst of these Democrats continuing to meet with our enemies (to be perfectly clear, if they’re killing our soldiers they’re our enemies), they still refuse to meet with President Bush so that the current funding crisis can be solved. Queen Nancy has repeatedly refused to meet with the president (of this country anyway) and Harry Reid refused to do so yesterday. So they’ll meet with Bashar al-Assad but they won’t meet with George W. Bush. They’ll go on Syrian television clad in headscarves but they won’t appear on Fox News to debate each other in the lead-up to their own primary. Is it just me or are Democrats treating conservatives the way they ought to be treating terrorists, and vice-versa?

This is the current state of the Democratic Party whose priorities are backwards. If there’s any indication the “Blame America First” crowd ever left the Democratic Party, this should be it. There’s no ass this party won’t kiss, especially if that ass belongs to an America-hating dictator. How many of them has Jimmy Carter sucked up to since he left office? Appeasement is an integral part of the liberal ideology and it’s on display right now with these visits. I can’t imagine anything productive that can emerge from meeting with an enemy committed to your country’s destruction, and I can’t imagine what Queen Nancy might say to Ahmadinejad (other than “what are your orders, sir?”). If they really support our troops and this country as they no longer say they do, they should be meeting and working with the president of this country on how to win the war and continue the fight against terrorism.

If they were serious in their desires for bipartisanship and cooperation with the administration, they wouldn’t be trying to go behind the president’s back trying to forge a competing foreign policy. They wouldn’t be trying to pull the rug from underneath our soldiers and doing so with spinach subsidies. They would instead be meeting with President Bush in order to resolve the current crisis they started over the funding of our troops. Queen Nancy’s visits with terrorist-supporting dictators that President Bush refused to meet because they are terrorist-supporting dictators are undermining this country. Perhaps more importantly, there can be no more destructive policy of an opposition party during wartime than telling your nation’s enemy to pay no attention to that man in the Oval Office.

Do Republicans Need a Bad Godesberg?

Looking at the current crop of Republican presidential candidates one has to wonder what Louisville basketball coach Rick Pitino must be thinking. While coaching the Boston Celtics, Pitino gave a rather infamous press conference where he told fans that Celtic greats Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, and Robert Parish were “not walking through that door,” and if they did “they’re going to be gray and old.” Much to the dismay of my fellow conservatives, Ronald Reagan is not walking through the door of the Republican National Convention in a year and a half, and Barry Goldwater isn’t walking through that door. In fact, if things continue as they are, it doesn’t look like Newt Gingrich is going to walk through that door either.

The fundamental question then is what kind of party we Republicans really want this election season. Indeed, the factionalism that many were warning about after the 2004 election consumed the party by the time the midterms rolled around last November. Today fiscal conservatives, traditional fundamentalists, moderates, libertarians, and conservatives of the “neo” and “paleo” variety all want something different from the Republican Party. This problem becomes all the more complex when you consider the current frontrunner for the 2008 nomination is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-gun control. On the opposite side of things, the one candidate whose unrelenting social conservatism no one doubts is himself failing to attract any attention at all.

Perhaps then it would be easier for Republicans to simply abandon the baggage of being an explicitly anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage party supposedly held hostage by the Christian Right. It is indeed possible to defend traditional American values without running on issues that might get 40% support on a good day. Requiring able-bodied welfare recipients to work, putting America’s interests before those of an international organization, and requiring all American citizens to learn English are just a few issues on which at least seven in ten Americans agree. I dare say most Americans are sick and tired of hearing about abortion and gay marriage. I know I am. In fact, I personally am calling upon my readers to give the first Republican candidate who mentions “defending traditional marriage” a swift kick to the gonads.

In 1959 at the Bad Godesberg Conference, the Social Democratic Party of Germany, plagued by a series of defeats at the ballot box, finally abandoned the explicitly Marxist elements of its platform that had scared and driven away potential voters for so many years. What resulted was a moderate party of the center-left that won four out of the next six German elections. In 1995, Tony Blair brought the Labour Party to the center kicking and screaming by re-writing Clause IV of the party constitution which had pledged to nationalize the means of production. The rest, as they say, is history, with Blair and "New Labour" in the middle of an unprecedented third term in office.

The lessons of these shifts in party policy show that by ditching divisive elements of the platform a party can still win elections and stay connected with key groups on more important issues. In 2006, the Republicans overemphasized abortion and gay marriage out of desperation since it had nowhere else to turn and nothing else on which to run. The result was clear enough with Karl Rove’s get-out-the-vote strategy falling short and moderate voters fleeing to the Democrats. Overemphasizing divisive social issues elected Bill Clinton twice (I still don’t know what we were thinking when Pat Robertson was made a keynote speaker at the ’92 Convention) and, of course, Queen Nancy. With that in mind, perhaps it would be best to forget about banging the abortion and gay marriage drums for a while and recommit the Republican Party to fiscal responsibility, a leaner federal government, a coherent and common sense immigration strategy, and a redoubling of our effort to win the war against radical Islam. Truly these are issues that can unite the party and carry us to victory.