Here's Where the Republicans Lost

Followers of the Republican Party will tell you that the base is not happy with the situation in Washington these days. While many on the Left will tell you that it's because of the operation in Iraq, the stories just don't show that to be the case. What many in the base see as a problem is the Party's lack of leadership in any elected office in Washington and, subsequently, an abandonment of the principles that put them there in 1994.

Who can we look to for major Conservative leadership in Washington since the departure of Tom Delay? Is it John McCain? Is is Dennis Hastert? What about the President? Some may want to look towards the Vice President, but he is only capable of breaking a tie in the Senate and he can't stray to far from the President's policy--unless he wanted to pull a Jefferson. Out of the possibilities that I have listed here, no one makes for a good candidate in my point of view. McCain is out to lead McCain, so there is no hope of him ever leading the Conservative movement in Washington. Hastert's recent outbursts about warranted FBI searches against Congressmen leaves little doubt that he cannot lead in serious matters, though I will give him some credit for his stance on the illegal immigration battle looming over the horizon. The President has some Conservative victories--tax cuts, free trade even his foriegn policy--but these can be negated by his support of No Child Left Behind and McCain/Feingold, among others. So where do we look? The few members of Congress that would make great leaders and great Conservative minds--Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum and Jeff Sessions--haven't or won't take the wheel. In the House of Representatives we have some promising candidates, but they are too young so to speak. In this regard I am speaking of Jeb Hensarling.

Jeb Hensarling recently led an effort to bring about some spending controll in the House by introducing a budget resolution that was identical to the one proposed in 1995. Then only one Republican voted against the resolution, now the "no" vote was 134. The Hill has this story ( http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/053106/contract.html).

“We built it using the same basic parameters,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), chairman of the conservative caucus, referring to his group’s budget. “It was designed to be same as the Contract With America. It was absolutely our intention to call the roll on the spirit of ’94,” he said, “We wanted to see who was willing to take the same tough stand the Republican majority had taken when the Republican Congress was newly minted. It does suggest that we’ve lost some of our revolutionary fervor.”

This bit from Rep. Pence is what I am alluding to in that the Party in Washington has lost its resolve to do what Conservatives elected them to do: limit the size and scope of the Federal Government. And the base sees this. The more that the base is ignored in Washington, and the closer the Party gets to nominating some one like McCain in '08, the more the base will be willing to leave the Party this election cycle. There are going to be some heated battles for the heart and soul of the Republican Pary this year and in the near future. With this refutation of the "spirit of '94," as Rep. Pence calls it, there could be a refutation of Republican control of Congress this November.

The Economy and Understanding It

I have been looking around at a couple of my favorite sites today and I have come across two items that perked my interest. The first item was a post at one of National Review's blogs called "Sixers," a look at the upcoming mid-terms. The other was a piece on Townhall.com by the one and only Professor Walter E. Williams. Both items point out the utter lack of understanding that people have in terms of economics.

Over at NR, Mr. Greg Pollowitz explains that Karl Rove has announced his strategy for this year's elections. You see in '02 it was national defense, in '04 it was pretty much the same but in '06 Rove's strategy is going to focus on the economy. Here's what I don't understand: With unemployment under 5 percent and the GDP gaining 5 percent in the first quarter alone, how is it that the American People need to be told that the economy is good? Well, of course, I know the answer to that. The mainstream press has done its job of telling you that the economy is terrible. "Yeah, jobs are being created, but these jobs are burger flipping jobs that pay minimum wage." This is not true and I will get to that in a minute. It's hard to believe that people cannot see that the economy in this Country is booming when they go to the grocery store or to the mall. You would think that this strategy of Rove's would be a piece of cake.

The second piece that has me just as confused--yet given the topic I understand my confussion--is Prof. Williams and his explaination of gas prices. He explains that "price gouging" is a figment of people's imagination and that the price at the pump is where it should be based on market determinations. I know, I hate paying for $3 dollar-a-gallon gasoline, but we are paying that because of the market, not because of fat-cat Oil Execs sitting in some Mohogany clad club sipping brandy and smoking cigars.

These two pieces would not have been necessary if the American People had any understanding of economics. For this, I blame two things: emotions and the lack of a simplified language when it comes to economics. When people are told that the "rich" received a tax cut, those who look at themselves as "working" class feel left out. This group of people, who probably make around $75,000 as a household if not more, do not look at themselves as "rich." So when a Liberal Senator or Representative goes before the TV cameras and says "tax cuts for the rich," the vast majority of the population who do not consider themselves rich are offended. Due to this emotional reaction, there is no thought about how much taxes the "average" American pays in taxes. (Right here I want to stress that I am talking in terms of Income Taxes.) Go to the IRS website and find out how much you actually pay in income taxes, and then compare that to the "rich." http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03in05tr.xls I bring this up because tax cuts help the economy. The "rich" also help the economy.

This gets us to the language of economics. Now, I am not Prof. Williams, that is, I don't have a Ph.D. in economics, but I can grasp the language for the most part. I know that when an outside force puts added cost to a business that business is either going to pass that cost to the consumer, or it will stop doing whatever is prompting the added cost. For instance--and we have all heard George Will use this--when some one proposes that we put in place a luxury tax to "make the rich pay their fair share," what do you think the "rich" are going to do? They are going to not buy luxuries. And when they stop buying luxuries, the people manufacturing those items are hurt. Same with a business, if government comes in and tells a business that they have to do something that they weren't doing before and it adds a cost to the business, that entity is going to pass the price of complying with that regulation off to the consumer. If I am an owner of a widget manufacturing plant, and before it cost me 5 dollars to make a widget, receive a profit and comply with government regulations, and then the government comes in and adds a new regulation to my business, what do think I am going to do to offset the cost of compliance? That's right, I am going to charge more for my widget, so that before it cost you 7 dollars to buy my widget, it will now cost you 9 dollars to buy one.

What I am getting at folks is economics in this country is really easy to understand even if you have no idea what Alen Greenspan said when he was Fed Chairman. The main thing that you have to worry about is your emotions. Getting back to my widget example, when I start charging you 9 dollars for what used to cost you 7 dollars, you will get mad at me, the businessman, without even taking into consideration why I am charging that price. If I was charging that price just to "gouge" you, then surely there is another widget manufacturer that is not charging 9 dollars. But think about this, if I am charging that price because I have to make up for the cost of a new government regulation, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that the other widget producers are having to comply with the same regulation?

Now, getting back to the job creation that has taken place in this Country since President Bush enacted his tax cuts. If you go to the Heritage Foundation's website and do a little searching, you will get some great work on this topic. I am going to link this particular study from 2004 about the quality of jobs created since Bush took office. You will see that these jobs are not "burger flippers." http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg1773.cfm#pgfId-1126956

Madame Speaker.......

The New York Times has a piece telling us that both Parties are excited about the prospect of there being a Madame Speaker to lead the next Congress. Obviously, for Democrats it means that Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker, making them the majority, but the Republicans are looking at it as a means of showing the American People that having her and her Party in charge is not the direction that the Country should be going. My take on it is this: The Republicans need to come up with more besides the Democrats being Liberals. They need Conservatism and fast.

But as far as having Ms. Pelosi as Speaker, all I can say is "Wow!!" I have heard this woman speak both on TV and in person in Washington and she is not the most articulate person on the block. I think particularly because--and I am just going to be candid here--she is not that bright. Well here, let me give this from the Times: "I am an Italian-American Catholic grandmother," she said, "very traditional in terms of values." Okay, you're a grandmother and an Italian-Catholic, so? When the American People look at politicians in terms of "values" they are not looking for concrete things, you know, things that can part of filling out an application. Hell, Benedict Arnold was a member of the Continental Army, victor of the battles of Saratoga and Ticondaroga. Just being apart of something does not mean that you are beholden to "traditional values." Part of a values system is based on what you do! And Ms. Pelosi, your actions as a Representative could hardly be considered American values. Your actions are San Francisco values.

The Times piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/washington/30pelosi.html?ei=5065&en=bb44dc6089c5b70f&ex=1149566400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

The Sanctity of Life in Great Britain

Two very heart wrentching stories have shown up in Britain dealing with abortion. One deals with the ease in which one can go about getting an abortion these days while the other discusses parents having abortions due to defects in the child. My first take on this is, "When will this come to our shores? Or has it already?" But then the deeper question arises--What about the respect and care of the unborn? Has England lost its conscience?

Well here are the stories.
Make 'em perfect: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=388114&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

And sex as recreation: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2201486,00.html

This first story just begins with saddness. "The ethical storm over abortions has been renewed as it emerged that terminations are being carried out for minor, treatable birth defects." The piece chalks it up to people wanting to have the "perfect" baby. Well, are we to judge perfection based on physical characteristics when it comes to our fellow man, or are we to only look at the body? Given the day's culture and what we see on TV and magazines, the body is all there is. (Plus, when hear some of these Hollywood types speak, it seems that the body is all they have so it better be perfect.) But I for one am not ready to throw away life because it looks different. Are we to get rid of Stephen Hawking?

The second story points to exactly what abortion is: a means to have sex without having to suffer the consequences. We have gone from abortion being necessary for the mother's health to aboriton being necessary for the salvation of the mother's social life. Here are the numbers of women getting this "treatment" in Britain.

The number of abortions bpas provided to women in the first nine weeks of gestation rose from 27,000 to 32,000 between 2004 and 2005. Early abortions now account for 65 per cent of the organisation’s 49,000 case load, up from 56 per cent a year earlier. This increase is part of an overall trend. In 2004, the latest year for which government figures are available, there were 185,400 abortions in England and Wales, compared with 181,600 in 2003, a rise of 2.1 per cent.

Foriegn Affairs in the Middle East

Afghan President Hamid Karzia visited Iran over the weekend attempting to bolster economic ties and the relationship between the two countries in general. We can only hope that among the discussion between Karzia and Iranian President Ahmadinejad was the subject of Iran's nuclear ambitions.
http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0605285601191312.htm

Or Perhaps Hillary is still in the Game...............

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1198863,00.html

More Bad News for Hillary

Hillary Clinton may be in for a disappointing two years as her hopes of becoming the first female President slip away. Who is it that is going to keep her from her ultimate goal? Republicans? Evil conservatives bent on convincing the American People that she is Satan? No! The ones that are standing in her way, as of this moment, are her own "constituents." The Left, of which she is definitely a part of, is having doubts about her. And the stories that have emerged in the past few days have pointed to this.

First, there was the New York Times piece talking about the status of her marriage to Bill. Then, with the release of his movie, Al Gore began getting great press and talked about as her major opponent in 2008. (We commented on one of these stories by Andrew Sullivan.) Now, we have yet another installment on the problems she has with Bill, this time involving the guest list for his birthday party later this summer in New York. The Sunday Times (UK) is stating that everyone with a vested interest with Hillary's '08 run is keeping an eye on who is--or isn't--on the guest list. Everyone is looking out for a Canadian MP and heiress, Belinda Stronach, to see if she will be at Bill's bash. Who is this young woman you ask? She has been the subject of tabloid speculation about another Bill romp with other than public intentions. There has been considerable refutation of this by Bill and Ms. Stronach, but the simple fact that Democrat Pols in Washington are hoping that she is not at Bill's party tells us that there maybe more there than just the avoidance of tabloid headlines. In fact The Times piece ends thus, "If history repeats itself and another glamorous blonde sings 'Happy birthday, Mr President' from the stage of Madison Square Garden, Democrats will be praying she is Hillary."

Democrats are already, about a year and a half out, giving reasons for why they will not nominate Mrs. Clinton to be on the top of the ticket for their Party. I am not saying that the Republicans should sleep on her, but there is reason to believe that she is not as invincible as she appeared when she won the Senate seat that she now occupies.

Oh, yeah, here's that Times piece: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2200169,00.html

Editor's Update: May 30, 2006

I found this through www.instapundit.com and thought that I would pass this along.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/v-echo/story/422082p-356248c.html

Andew Sullivan's bad Gore joke

In the latest edition of the Times London (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2199893,00.html), Andrew Sullivan has a piece explaining why 2008 may be the year of Gore. He gives us the all too familiar parallel between Gore and Richard Nixon, how they both lost close elections after being Vice President for administrations that served during robust periods in American histroy. And then he goes on to explain some of the other things that Gore has going for him: a Vietnam-esque war, the seemingly validity to man-made global warming and the belief that the American People are looking for a more "compitent" leader in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. But towards the end of the piece he gives this reason: "Then there’s the issue of karma. Gore won the popular vote in 2000. If a few old Jewish ladies in Palm Beach had not been confused by their ballots and voted for Patrick Buchanan, Gore would have won Florida as well — and the presidency. Everyone knows this — and that election still wounds America in ways that a Gore candidacy might assuage." After all of the reasons that Mr. Sullivan pointed to as to why Al Gore could become the next President of the United States, his ending note that he is due it via karma. Well how is this any different than Hillary Clinton being deserving of the Presidency because she had to put up with the sexcapades of Bill? Certainly there are other reasons why Gore should/could be President, and Mr. Sullivan gives them.

Mr. Sullivan explains that Gore has displayed a good deal of timing in releasing his new movie An Inconvenient Truth where man is blamed for the destruction of our beloved planet. Mr. Sullivan explains that "new data [has] persuaded even sceptics like me that global warming is real, man-made and potentially hazardous." And Gore has done a great human service to bring this to the world's attention. The only problem is the latest data does not prove that man is the main culprit nor does it prove that there is a potential hazard. In fact, one of the biggest points of "proof" that Gore looks to in his movie is the melting of the polar ice caps. However, in 2002 polar climate specialist at the University of Illinois in Chicago John Walsh said, "In Antarctica, there is not a strong heating or cooling trend either way." Walsh went on to say in a National Geographic piece from 2002 that about 60 to 70 percent of Antarctica is experiencing a cooling trend. This along with numerous other studies from the past few years--and when I say few I mean two to four years--has shown that the case of man-made global warming is not yet closed.

The second main reason Mr. Sullivan gives as to why Gore should/could be the next President is his "long track record of hawkishness, especially with respect to the Middle East." Well, first of all the last time that the United States embarked on a major military action, i.e. the use of ground troops, was in the First Gulf War when Al Gore was a Senator. This action during Bush 41 was even done under the banner of the United Nations, and yet, Al Gore, as a Senator, voted against using force against Saddam Hussein and exspelling his forces from Kuwait. Recently Gore was in Saudi Arabia where he commenced to explain how the United States has treated Islamofacists held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba as less than human. (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/12/D8FNUKEO0.html)
Even though Gore made the best effort to explain to the members of the Jeddah Economic Forum that the majority of American People wish Muslims no harm, he gave no specifics to what he meant when he said, "Arabs had been 'indiscriminately rounded up' and held in 'unforgivable' conditions." Oh, and Gore said nothing of the way Americans have been treated at the hands of the terrorists. Does anyone remember the name Nick Berg?

Mr. Sullivan is wrong about Al Gore. Gore would not asuage centrists on the War on Terror and his policy solutions in regards to global warming would only serve to hurt the United States and do next to nothing to reverse the trends of global warming. His "hawkishness" on terrorism is not what I would call soothing. More than likely, Gore would revert back to the pre-9/11 methods for fighting the War on Terror; he would treat as a criminal matter, something that former US Attorney and National Review contributor Andy McCarthy has been railing against since the terror attacks from that beautiful September morning.

The Legislative versus the Executive

This past week we saw an extraordinary event happen, so extraordinary, in fact, that it has never been done before in the history of the Republic. The Justice Department, acting through the law enforcement arm of the FBI, went into and searched an office of a US Representative, William Jefferson (D-La). Although, despite the fact that the FBI acted with the authority of a warrant, there has been an outcry from the Legislative branch. Many in the punditry have even criticized the actions taken by the Justice Department as far as the manner in which they developed. My only take on all of this is confussion. First of all, this was an event that transpired over the course of eight months. Second, the FBI had issued a subpoena last fall which leads me to believe that this was something that the DoJ did not do at a whim. They did not wake up on a Saturday thinking, "Ya' know, I think we should raid the office of a Representative." Finally, why the indignation on the part of the other Representatives? The fact that they are mad at the DoJ and not with the results and findings within the office of one of their colleagues is telling. No one can deny that Mr. Jefferson has skeletons in his closet given the actions taken by the House Ethics Committee and those of the Democrat Leader, Ms. Pelosi. Furthermore, the FBI executed a targetted search; they did not ransack Mr. Jefferson's office nor did they inadvertantly grab documents not related to the case at hand. Yet, we have a quote, unquote Constitutional crisis? I am not buying it and neither should the American People.

For more on this consult: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/24/D8HQ79QG2.html

The Mission Statement

The purpose that I wish to serve here is the defense of the traditions that have made this Republic great. The defense of the Nation is a defense of the ideals of the Founders, mainly that Liberty can only be sustained with a limited government. Along with the defense of this idea, is the defense of social responsibility and all that it encompasses, for if we are to maintain a non-intrusive system of Government, then we must be able to act within society with a set of morals compatible with all other citizens of the United States; conversely, those citizens who violate this code of ethics, should not be offended when they are criticized.