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.