RIP Tim Russert

One of the few very respectable journalists who truly pursued truth in politics. Watch the video below for an inspiring tribute to his life.

Obama Republicans?

Obama compares himself to Reagan in the sense that Reagan put us on a different "trajectory."

"Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not," he said, describing Reagan as appealing to a sentiment that, "We want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

He is aiming to transform America into his own image because he sees that the American people are ready for...wait for it...CHANGE!
The relabeled progressives still adhere to their socialistic utopian idealism and are biding their time, salivating over the possibility of majority in all branches of the federal government so they can continue to give us their oppressive hugs, oaths to the Constitution notwithstanding.

The comments are alive with hope that he can create a new coalition and draw Republicans over to his side. The fact that this is even a hope for someone like Obama shows a Republican party bereft of actual conservative leadership. Where people are led, they will go, and Republican leaders have ceded leadership to those with more desire for power by becoming fiscally indistinguishable over the last eight years.

The Horse Race

RealClear Politics has the overall average of the polls...paints an interesting picture...

Fred Talks Issues

Fred Talks Religion

From CBS:

A woman asked him if he would “as a Christian, as a conservative” continue President Bush’s programs to combat global AIDS.

“Christ didn’t tell us to go to the government and pass a bill to get some of these social problems dealt with. He told us to do it,” Thompson said.

“The government has its role, but we need to keep firmly in mind the role of the government, and the role of us as individuals and as Christians on the other.”

This is true "compassionate conservatism" where the role of the government is in its proper place. The original intent of this idea was to eliminate the religious bias evident in government funding. His separating individual responsibility from government responsibility is something that we've lost since Reagan.

A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have. - Ronald Reagan

McCain -- Comeback?

Why is McCain's victory a "comeback?" He hardly campaigned in Iowa and took 3rd. He campaigned hard in N.H., where he won the 2000 primary primarily because independents are allowed to vote, and subsequently won. He's been a front-runner there for a long time. This is the first primary...there have been no "comebacks" by anyone and the race is still wide open.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline commented on his excellent victory speech and I find that I agree.
Compare to the Democrats' victory speeches...

Why Did Hillary Win New Hampshire?

She cried and Bill had her back (even though it's still all about him -- watch the clip -- he starts out ostensibly defending her, but at the end of his rant, notice who he's talking about). Together they are arguably the most powerful political force in the U.S. ... which gives me the shivers. But mainly it's because she cried.

People haven't like her because she has gotten more strident in her rhetoric...and people don't like angry women. But, she spoke from her heart and cried because she loves this country so much. So, our feminized culture, weened on Oprah and Barbara Walters, braved the harsh elements and voted for the tired old warhorse who has been advocating "change" for 35 years.

I posted on Liberal Fascism (Here is Jonah Goldberg's blog about the book) and briefly mentioned Hillary's collectivist intentions. She states it very clearly...

DANIEL Ranks the Candidates

You can view last night's debate here. Also, I caught the debate on Foxnews tonight...my reflections....

I like the format...the staged high school popularity contests "moderated" by self-important liberals were farcical imitations of serious discussions. In these last two debates, we were actually able to hear the candidates talk ideas, though I do wish there were more of them.

When asked about principles last night, here's what they said:

McCain - military service, the transcendent nature of our war with radical Islam, cites Declaration
Romney -- family, principles of an "eternal nature", importance of strengthening families, economy and military. Strong in all areas. I, for one, don't want the federal government attempting to "strengthen" my family.
Giuliani -- Safety. Cited Reagan.
Huckabee -- Not policies, principles. Cited Declaration, humans created equal. Rights come from God, not government.
Thompson -- First principles based upon Constitution. Goes on with a very important explanation of the Constitutional principles. Something that no other candidate does.
Paul -- Peace and Prosperity

My take on the candidates:

Huckabee -- he says good things (strong military, secure the border, etc.). You can see Newt's influence here and there (large monetary incentives for energy inventions). He cited the Declaration when asked about principles. However, he's having a hard time coalescing his record with his current rhetoric. He was nailed on the immigration issue when he tried to explain that he wasn't punishing the children with his now-tougher stance on illegal immigration. When asked if he could honestly say he is ready to lead given his lack of foreign policy experience, he gave answers that shows that he indeed, has no foreign policy experience. When talking about health care, he went on about prevention and said the system is upside-down. Ok, so what's the plan? Nothing.

Romney -- The Foxnews focus group was all about Romney. They saw him as very convincing. Much talk about change and leadership from all the candidates, but especially Romney. He emphasized his executive experience, saying that we don't need experts, but leaders. He played the change card from outside Washington.

McCain -- says that he is an agent of change within the government and has been for twenty years. He said that Americans want "leadership" not "management." He actually mentioned McCain-Feingold at this debate...that's one piece of history that he probably should not have brought up. He talked about his leadership in the military and his breadth of experience in foreign policy. He repeated how he was ahead of the curve on the Iraq surge. I think that he and Thompson are the most knowledgeable candidates on foreign policy.

Thompson -- I think obviously the most knowledgeable and committed to Constitutional principles. The others never even bring it up. He explained well-thought out plans to address social security, health care, tax policy, illegal immigration and homeland security. He was like a professor explaining to Huck about the habeas corpus rights that enemy combatants would receive if they were detained at Leavenworth, rather than Guantanamo (which Huck said should be closed down).

Giuliani -- I don't have much time for him. I respect him for what he did in New York and would vote for him if he was the nominee, but he seems to me to be a hedonist whose highest principle is safety.

They talked about the Fair Tax -- Thompson made the point that it's not a bad idea, but that it would require a Constitutional Amendment to ensure that the income tax never comes back. Instead, he proposes an option for the taxpayer that is flatter and much more easily workable.

So, which candidate meets The King's Academy's standard of leadership? The standards of

• knowledge - a firm grasp of founding principles, current issues facing the nation and engaging ideas.
  
• wisdom -- willingness to apply founding principles, able to predict consequences of decisions and demonstrated ability to act toward results in line with principles.
  
• and godly character (I'm not guessing at spiritual condition, but a publicly demonstrated quality of integrity).

Now, for the time you've been waiting for since reading the title of the post... See my terribly scientific and thoroughly unbiased ranking here on a scale of 1-10 on these three criteria.

After this debate, I still stick to my original analysis that any of these guys will be acceptable as President. They are not all leaders, but they would manage well.

For two good analyses, see Michelle Malkin and the guys at Powerline.

Republican Debate - January 5, 2008

Missed the debate tonight due to significant posterity investment today. The feedback is mixed on how the debate turned out. I am waiting to see it on Youtube and will give my comments tomorrow.

It appears that Fred did well...

Revealing Quotes

Quotes that I could find last night. I find it telling that the quotes are from the media darlings, irrespective of anything substantive:

With former President Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, standing to one side of her and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to the other, Clinton said, "I am so ready for the rest of this campaign and I am so ready to lead."

...instead of "lead", put "have my way." It's going to get ugly...

Obama, 46 and a first-term senator from Illinois, told a raucous victory rally his triumph showed that in "big cities and small towns, you came together to say, 'We are one nation, we are one people and our time for change has come.'"

Change! We need change! What kind? Doesn't matter! Does he know what he is doing? Who cares!?!

Huckabee celebrated his own victory over Mitt Romney and a crowded Republican field. "A new day is needed in American politics, just like a new day is needed in American government," the former Arkansas governor told cheering supporters.

A "new day", as in "an old day circa 1976"

Top 10 Reasons to Vote for Fred Thompson

In no particular order...

10. He does not kowtow


9. He doesn't put up with the political horse race nonsense and is attempting to focus the American people on issues critical to our nation's survival and prosperity, despite the media's obsession with minutiae.



8. Federalism - A candidate that takes the time to actually tell us that the federal government is NOT the solution to all of our problems and explains the concept of federalism, is one that seems to understand the Constitution. This is very good. We haven't had this since 1988.



7. Understands the source of our rights as from God, not government.

Individual Liberty . As Jefferson spelled out in the Declaration of Independence, our basic rights come from God, not from government, and that among these inalienable rights is the right to liberty. We must allow individuals to lead their lives with minimal government interference.

As I tell my students when studying the Bill of Rights...these are NOT a list of rights that our government gives us. They are a listing of innate natural rights that are protected from government interference. Any right granted by the government can be rescinded by the government. Any government that attempts to infringe upon inalienable (untransferable, i.e. the inability to transfer this right to you, no matter how much I wish to) rights, is immoral.

6. Understands and states that each liberty is coupled with a responsibility.

Personal Responsibility . The corollary to liberty is responsibility. No society can succeed and thrive for any duration unless free people act in a responsible way. All of us must take responsibility for our actions and strive to improve our own lives and to contribute to building a better society.

This is not a corporate responsibility (read collectivism) that we all have to (the poor, the middle class, the puppies, etc.), it is an individual responsibility. Teaching Sociology in the university, the textbook I was given was rife with scorn for individualism. This characteristic, it was said, was responsible for all sorts of ills, from stress to hegemony. The ones to emulate were the wise cultures that emphasize the group above the individual like the ever peaceful and happy villagers in South American mountain ranges.

These sophists ought to be glad for the individualism that has given them an environment in which all their needs are met, and they have the time to write pretentious screeds disguised at textbooks.

Whenever the government talks about a "moral imperative" or "our responsibility to help" be sure that they are not volunteering themselves, but you. Irrespective of whether or not you believe in the cause they are propounding.

5.


more later...

Liberal Fascism

Teaching political science to my students, I would typically draw a continuum of political monikers that looked something like this with the extreme liberal as Radical and the extreme conservative as Reactionary.

According to the typical definition, the Radical (1) places high trust in human nature, (2) sees change in culture or institutions as progress and (3) holds individual freedom as paramount.

At the other end of the continuum is the Reactionary. He is (1) distrustful of human nature, (2) places great trust in tradition and institutions and (3) sees individual freedom as important, but subject to social mores.

The ideal government of the Radical is anarchy or communism, the ideal of the Reactionary is fascism. (Pop Quiz: Which governmental system has been given much more time by books, movies, etc., outlining and examining the atrocities? Which governmental system killed more people in the last century? What do you think is the cause of the discrepancy? Please comment!)

All this has been radically altered in the last twenty years by everyone's favorite generation, the Boomers. The arrogant idealism of the 60's has revealed the lie in these definitions. The Boomers as a generation are so arrogant that they truly do believe that, even though they don't trust institutions in general, their institutions should be trusted. Individual freedom is paramount, but only according to their definition.

So, now we have this thought process that not only promotes individual liberties, but forces others to not only accept, but to approve of and participate in the exercise of those (contrived) liberties. This is the essence of collectivism, found in both communism and fascism.

Which brings me to Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism. I don't believe it's out yet, but Glenn Reynolds said that

Goldberg has a lot to say about the “progressive” roots of both socialism and fascism and the way they’re reflected in contemporary politics.

If you go to the above link, Glenn conducted a very interesting interview with a good discussion on the content of the book. See some rough notes of the interview below:

Mr. Goldberg encourages people to read Hillary's It Takes a Village. Her vision of a village is a "profoundly totalitarian one...in which the helping professions are empowered to intervene to smash the sanctity of the family." Quoted Woodrow Wilson in saying that "educator's job is to make children as unlike their parents as possible." No natural boundary where the state stops and the family begins -- no islands of "separateness"--"if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem - very fascistic."

Referring to the nice liberalism that just wants to help..."An unwanted hug is still an oppressive thing -- soft totalitarianism is still dangerous."

Compares the platform of 1932 Nazis with 1972 McGovern - practically the same minus the ethnic Jewish hatred. From the beginning, Nazis were socialists.

Left wing believes that they are the arbiters of political morality.

He also see "compassionate conservative" as being dangerously close to Liberal Fascism. It works on the assumption that the government can love you...It can't...It's not your daddy or mommy. Talks about Huck coming from the classic social gospel position.

Nationalism and Socialism is the same thing...when you nationalize health care, you socialize it.

Great Interview...listen to it, then buy the book!

Worst Congress Ever

This is a fun read...although Rush does (as he usually does) oversimplify the numbers, he is always fun to listen to...sort of like eating Reese's Peanut Butter Cups...fun to eat, just don't eat too much.

The oversimplification has to do with the fact that people tend to rate Congress as a whole lower than their own congressman. So, this overwhelmingly negative number may or may not mean that 69% would say that "electing this Congress was a mistake."

All Good Candidates (Except Paul)

I saw the debate this afternoon. I wasn't terribly impressed by Fred's inaugural debate, but not disappointed either. Above all, though, I believe that Republicans really need to get their heads on straight concerning their candidates.

Most of the men on that stage would serve us well as President of the U.S. For some reason, fellow Republicans are down in the mouth about our prospects. Are you kidding? These guys all have great experience, most are grounded in conservative principles and they are on our side.

It's ok to be picky at this point, but let's not lose sight of the big picture. No matter who is picked as Republican nominee, I will vote for that nominee in good conscience. Why? Let's consider the alternative.

It is very possible that the Dems will pick up seats in both houses. Gaining a filibuster-proof majority is not unthinkable. If this is the case, Hillary, who is the presumptive nominee, will ram through the government-based solutions that so often screw up the economy, victimize the people it claims to help, and enrich the saviors who are victimizing those they claim to be saving.

Let's think about just a couple of issues:

1. Supreme Court Nominees -- Does anyone think Mrs. Clinton will nominate anyone who takes the Constitution seriously? Even Rudy has said that he would nominate originalist judges, despite his position on abortion.
2. National Security -- Does anyone truly think that the Dems have a clue about national security? Really? Take, just for one example, the fact that Sandy Berger is back on the Clinton staff despite his stealing classified documents from the National Archives and being stripped of his security clearance. What kind of foolishness would put people like this in a position of protecting national security? Add to this the fact that Berger was Clinton's National Security Advisor while we blindly meandered toward 9/11.
3. Health Care -- This is her trademark issue. If she served as President and didn't come out the other side with socialized medicine, she would be considered a failure.

So, get all your in-fighting and complaining out now (particularly my fellow evangelicals--the good Dr. Dobson included), because we cannot go wobbly on voting for our man after the Primaries, no matter who he is.