Now Newt Gingrich is saying much the same thing.  From This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

We are at the end of the George W. Bush era.  We are at the end of the Reagan era. We’re at a point in time when we’re about to start redefining — as a number of people started talking about, starting to redefine — the nature of the Republican Party, in response to what the country needs.

Rush just didn’t know what to do with that.  He’s been a Gingrich supporter for years and Newt says something like that.  It put Rush in a spot.

Rush had this to say on his show today:

Every one of these Republicans is starting to talk about redefining the party, and this has been going on since the early days of this, not just now. If you recall, all during last year, I told you this was my big concern: that Reaganism and conservatism were going to be redefined so as to fit the mold of whoever these guys on our primary roster are.  One of the things that Newt said is "redefine the nature of the Republican Party in response to what the country needs." Something about that rubs me wrong.  Something about that sort of grates on me.  The Republican Party is supposed to sit out there and I guess (slurps) moisten its index finger, stick it in the air, find out what people want, and be that?  That’s not who we are!  Now, it may be who populists are.  In fact, it is exactly who populists are.  Even if you have no intention of following through on what you plan to do as you promise all these wonderful things to your supporters, as a populist. But this is not what the Republican Party has been.  It’s what the Democrat Party had been.

This fits right in with what’s been going on with the Republican race for the nomination.  The lines are drawn, the assumptions have all been made and everyone is hearing what they expect to hear rather than what is actually being said.

Newt was on Hannity and Colmes tonight and Sean asked him about the comment.  Newt went on the explain that the Republican Party cannot continue trying to hold on to the issues of the eighties.  He pointed out that most of the major concerns we have today didn’t exist when Reagan was in office.  Gingrich made the point that if Reagan was in office today he’d be tackling today’s issues, not the issues of the eighties.  In effect, the Reagan era is over and it’s time for a new era if Republicans want to win.

Newt was NOT denigrating the Reagan legacy or conservatism.  He made it clear that he was always a Reagan supporter.  But what Rush and others seem to want is Reagan himself.  Too bad.

No one is a bigger fan of Ronald Reagan than I am.  Reagan stood for conservatism long before it was fashionable and he is the model of conservatism.  But we aren’t facing the Soviet Union, Reagan defeated that.  We aren’t facing many of the problems we faced in the eighties.  We have a whole new set of problems and we have to face them head on as a party and decided how we’ll deal with them and articulate that to the electorate.  We can’t do that if we’re constantly bickering over Reagan.

It’s not going to happen but Rush, Laura Ingraham and the rest of the right leaning pundits need to stop living in the past and take a look at the present.  Reagan is dead.  We aren’t going to return to the eighties much as some of those pundits might wish we could.

I want conservatives in office.  But if every candidate that takes a look at the changing landscape ends up characterized as a populist we’re facing a long uphill battle.

The only thing I can come up with is this visceral fear that only Giuliani can beat Hillary Clinton. Certainly many feel that way but I wholeheartedly disagree with them. In fact, I believe that ONLY a solid conservative can beat Hillary Clinton. But that is beside the point here.

The fact is, Robertson has sold his soul for this endorsement. Not that Pat Robertson is all that credible but what credibility he had is gone now. I’m sure there are some people who would follow the man straight into hell but I think most evangelicals will see this as a total compromise with the devil.

I’ve been critical of James Dobson for his public stand against anyone who isn’t a total social conservative but that criticism is not because I disagree with him. My criticism is that Dobson has made a habit recently of saying things publicly that were better said in the pulpit. In truth, I have a real problem with any candidate who is not a social conservative and I doubt that I could vote for one. The very real probability is that many evangelicals will stay home come election day if Giuliani is the Republican nominee. They simply will be unable to pull the lever for him and rather than vote for someone worse they just won’t vote at all.

As implied above, Pat Robertson hasn’t has much credibility except with his faithful following for some time. He has a habit of running off at the mouth and saying some pretty ridiculous things. But this really tops the charts. I cannot fathom how a follower of Christ, someone who holds the sanctity of life so dear and fights for the traditional family, can come out and publicly endorse a man who stands in opposition to these principles.

Truth be told, I’m not sure what I will do come election day if Rudy is the Republican nominee. But I know there is not chance that would work to put him in that position. That Robertson is working to put him in that position is just inexcusable.

Blogged with Flock

Thompson spoke for about 25 minutes and covered a lot of ground. In a speech of that length you can either cover one topic with some depth or you can skim the surface of a lot of topics. Since there was no overriding theme, Thompson chose the latter. What follows is my account of Thompson’s comments today.

Senator Thompson had quite a few quotable moments. The first was in his recounting of his visit with Former Prime Minister Thatcher and her relationship with Ronald Reagan. Referring to the accomplishments of the two Thompson said “strength doesn’t cause wars, strength prevents wars.” He then recounted how following the end of the cold war the US cut defense spending by more than 1/3, military development by 50% and allowed our intelligence operations to languish, particularly our human intelligence capabilities. He pointed out that through numerous attacks on our assets around the world we did little to nothing until 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

Thompson showed a real grasp of the situation we face in Islamic fascism. He said that our enemy sees this conflict as having already gone on for a hundred years and they are prepared to go another hundred if necessary. He said that people just don’t understand or appreciate that fact. He went on to say that in previous conflicts the country always pulled together but now partisan politics takes precedence. A big applause moment was when Thompson talked about the sons of two friends who are serving in Iraq and have re-upped. He said they had hope and optimism and he wasn’t going to give up hope so long as they held it. Thompson said we need leadership to bring us together, implying that he can provide that leadership.

In the subject of illegal immigration Thompson agreed that it was dividing our party but he expressed optimism that the party would get past it. He emphasized that the resolution had to come from consideration of what was best for the country, not what was best for either party. He said that thousands of illegal immigrants are not Mexicans and that is a grave risk to national security. Thompson said that we could not hope to protect our country until we secure our borders and he flatly said that the current immigration reform bill is not what is best for this country. He rightly pointed out that we got the same promises in 1986 that we are getting today and there is no reason to believe them now. He also pointed out that the US grants one million green cards per year now so claims that we are taking an anti-immigration stand are unfounded. In another quotable moment Thompson said “we welcome legal immigrants and this is home to all of us but we get to decide who comes to our home.” Thompson said the government can’t handle the backlog of four million legal immigrants waiting on processing now so how can they possibly handle 12-20 million more?

On the question of taxes Thompson said that low taxes benefit everyone but the tax and spend types want to divide up a static pie instead of increasing the size of the pie so everyone gets a larger piece, precisely Reagan’s position. He did not endorse the FairTax but he did say that we are bankrupting the country, the government and the economy and that waiting to fix the problem hurts everyone.

In a great moment for religious conservatives Thompson, referring to the Declaration of Independence, said that our rights come from God and not from government. He went on to say that our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they set up our federal form of government with separation of powers. The implication seemed to be that we’ve strayed far from that ideal now. While not expressly mentioning abortion or assisted suicide, Thompson emphasized the sanctity of human life.

Thompson said we need a new coalition of people coming together for the good of the country. The clear implication was that he could build that coalition. That is exactly what Ronald Reagan did. He built a coalition of people from both parties, not in government but in the electorate. Reagan won two landslide victories by convincing democrats to vote for him.

I’ve often said this country is floundering because no leader has been able to cast a vision that the people caught hold of. Bush seems to understand the threat from Islamic fascism but he has utterly failed to articulate that to the people in a way that grabs their attention. There have been a lot of comparisons between Reagan and Thompson, not the least being they are both actors. Some have pointed out that Thompson is not like Reagan in the sense that Reagan has a long history of conservative intellectual thought and writing. Thompson clearly does not have that.

There is, however, one comparison that really works and that is the ability to communicate. Reagan could cast a vision and so can Thompson. On all the issues I’ve heard him speak on Thompson has been on the right side. He certainly was today. He may not be the conservative intellectual Reagan was but he has that long missing ability to communicate in a way that is at once understandable and compelling. He has the ability to cast a vision. I believe that he can bring in a lot of Democrats and that could easily turn the tide, not just in the election but also in terms of moving this country forward as a people with a common vision for the future. Unless this country gets behind a strong leader who is willing to do what it takes, we are in for a very difficult and painful future. As Churchill said, “sometimes it isn’t enough to do your best, sometimes you have to do what is required.” We, as a country, must be willing to do what is required if we expect our future to look anything like our past. It is my belief that of all the Republican candidates, Fred Dalton Thompson is far and away the best man to cast the vision for this country.

As an ending note let me relate my brief exchange with Thompson today. There was a large crowd of people who wanted to meet Thompson and shake his hand and I was in the middle of it. When I finally got the chance I extended my hand and Thompson took it. He has a real man’s handshake. His large hand wrapped around mine with a firm grip the way a man is supposed to shake hands, not bone crushing but you know you’re shaking hands. I told him that a lot of people were really excited at the prospect of him running and I was one of them. He smiled and thanked me. Then I told him that all those people, including myself, were going to be really disappointed if he decided against running. He grinned real big and said, “so will I.”

————–
NOTE: I recorded Thompson’s speech on my cell phone. The audio isn’t the best in the world and there is considerable background noise but it you can hear what Thompson had to say. The format is a peculiar cell phone format and I can’t find a way to convert it to mp3. I’m thinking about uploading it anyway since Real Player will play it but I’d prefer to convert it to mp3 so everyone can use it. If you know a good way to convert it, please let me know. Alternatively, if you have the ability to convert it I’ll be happy to send it to you for conversion if you’ll send the converted file back. Just let me know.

UPDATE:  Thanks to Orlando the file is now in mp3 format.  To listen to it click here.

Technorati : Fred Thompson

The campaign stop was sponsored by South Carolina FairTax. The FairTax organization does not endorse candidates but FairTax.org has an interest in having Governor Huckabee speak because he has been the most vocal supporter of the FairTax among the Republican presidential candidates. This stop was no exception.

The Governor has clearly done his homework when it comes to the FairTax. He spoke at length about why he supports it, citing things like the end of the underground economy, the elimination of the IRS and all payroll taxes, the transparency of the proposed system and boost it would give to the US economy. He also pointed out that rules that now prevent churches and other non-profit organizations from endorsing candidates and supporting certain issues would be ended. These organizations would be an equal footing with all other organizations.

While the event was organized to talk about the FairTax, Governor Huckabee spoke on a number of other issues and fielded a number of questions, handling them deftly. When ask about the war on terror, the Governor was quick to correct the questioner. He said we are not fighting a war on terror, terror is a tactic. Rather, he said we are fighting a war against radical Islamic fascism. Huckabee said this is a theological war and our enemy believes they are called by God to convert or kill us which means there is no room for negotiating. He said it was naive to believe we can just leave them alone and they’ll leave us alone.

When asked about the problem of illegal immigration Huckabee said any solution had to start with border enforcement. He made the point that it was unrealistic to ask the American people to obey the laws when the government isn’t willing to enforce the law when it comes to the border. Regarding the current immigration reform legislation in Congress the Governor said he’d really like to get the deal illegal immigrants would be offered under the bill, allowing them to pay $2000 and be forgiven for back taxes.

One person asked what the Governor would do about education. He began by saying that as a former governor he was very aware that education was a state issue and went on to talk about raising standards, introducing competition and bringing back the concept of a liberal arts education that includes music and arts as well as math and science because it better teaches kids to think spatially and gives them more outlets for their creative energies.

I followed that question with another. I pointed out that he said education was a state issue and that, while Ronald Reagan wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, George Bush has increased its size exponentially. I asked what roll he saw for the federal government in education. He responded that the federal government’s roll should be one of a clearing hose for ideas, not one of requiring states to do anything. He said that the federal government should encourage states to innovate and then get out of their way.

When asked what he would do about AIDS and cancer the governor responded that the best thing to do was reform the tax system so people had more disposable income to contribute to causes they support. He pointed out that many people would love to donate today but can’t because it takes all they make to get by. If the tax code was more fair and people were paying less tax they’d have more to give. He said the same held true for other problems like poverty.

If you read this blog or even if you just got here for the first time you know I support Fred Thompson. I have a number of reasons for doing so, many that I’ve already written about on this blog. But I have to say, Governor Huckabee is impressing me more and more each day. He is gaining in the polls but I fear that he does not have a real shot at the nomination. When primary time rolls around here in South Carolina I will have to vote for the the candidate that I believe is the best choice from among those who can actually win. Should Huckabee be up there in that range when February ‘08 comes, he might have my vote.

It’s still very early and I’m not prepared to endorse anyone but Thompson at this point. But a lot could happen between now and next February. I’ll be keeping a close eye on Mike Huckabee.

Thompson, the “Law & Order” star and former U.S. senator from Tennessee, has been publicly coy, even as people close to him have been furiously preparing for a late entry into the wide-open contest. But the advisers said Thompson dropped all pretenses on Tuesday afternoon during a conference call with more than 100 potential donors, each of whom was urged to raise about $50,000.

In the story, Allen says Thompson plans on formally announcing his candidacy over the forth of July holiday. Thompson will apparently announce in Nashville where her will begin his campaign in the trademark red pickup truck he used with his Senate campaigns.

A testing-the-waters committee is to be formed June 4 so Thompson can start raising money, and staffers will go on the payroll in early June, the organizers said. A policy team has been formed, but remains under wraps.

<snip>

Campaign officials said they have every indication Thompson will declare his candidacy, but cautioned that he could still decide not to run or to postpone the announcement. Mark Corallo, the campaign spokesman, said: “He is seriously considering getting in and doing everything he has to do to come to a final decision.”

Folks, this is great news, although it is not unexpected. Fred’s got a plan and he’s working that plan, apparently to good effect. Many have feared the loss of ground Thompson has had in terms of fund raising but he appears to be raising money anyway and since he’s not yet in the race, he has no FEC reporting requirements.

Thompson urged the supporters to muster a major show of financial force in early July, just after the June 30 deadline for second-quarter financial reports to the Federal Election Commission.

Thompson’s top rivals – Rudolph Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney – will have a formidable advantage for the current quarter, so he plans to show his muscle right after that.

I don’t know about you but I’m excited. June 4th, the date Thompson forms his exploratory committee, can’t come fast enough! Let the race begin for real.

The project is called Ft. Hard Knox and you can find it at www.FortHardKnox.com. Of course you’ll find excellent conservative commentary and opinion there but that is not its primary purpose. It is designed to combine blogging, wikkis and message boards in one platform to involve people who are not necessarily web savvy.

My involvement has been in setting up the new blog. I’ve managed to build some decent experience in installing, setting up and moving WordPress blogs. I’m proud to be involved with this outstanding group of conservatives. If you are interested in joining up, surf on over to Ft. Hard Knox.

Thompson’s chief appeal is emotional. Until now, many conservative Republicans have had to wince when they thought of their plausible presidential choices. Giuliani is too liberal, McCain is too unpredictable and too well-liked by the media, and Romney seems like a flip-flopper on the issues they care about. The possibility of a Thompson candidacy excites the Republicans I talk to. He’s an “outsider”-having left Washington for Law and Order before the Beltway rot set in. He’s a good communicator, which means he can sell conservative policies and has the star power to battle Hillary or Obama. Though he hasn’t been through the press-vetting process, his voting record and talk-radio performances suggest he holds conservative enough positions. Oh, and he can raise Hollywood cash.

The first mistake the author makes is equating conservatives and Republicans. While most conservatives are Republicans, if only because there is nowhere else to go, many Republicans are not conservative. One need only look at George Bush and the Republican controlled Congress that lost so spectacularly last November to demonstrate this.

The second mistake the author makes is equating conservative policies with Republican policies and assuming the American people don’t like either.

The myth behind the Thompson quasi-candidacy is a dangerous one that bedevils both parties: If we just get a better communicator, people will love our policies. But once Thompson enters the race, he will have to either embrace or distance himself from GOP policies, which will either ruin his chances in the general election or hurt him with his conservative supporters. In short, he’ll become just like any other candidate-something he might not like after such a big buildup. Thompson also has a reputation for not enjoying the grind of campaigning.

The author assumes that the moment Thompson, or any other Republican candidate for that matter, begins espousing conservative principles and policies, their popularity will decline and they will be defeated. Nothing could be further from the truth!

The biggest problem Republicans faced in the mid-term elections was not Iraq. It certainly was not conservative policies. In fact, the few conservative policies enacted in the last Congress and during President Bush’s time in office have been rousing successes. The problems come in where Republicans have abandoned conservative principles.

Just look at what Democrats had to do to win last November. Essentially they out ‘conservatived’ the Republican Party. They recruited candidates all across the country who ran on conservative principles. They ran against the liberal policies the Republican Party had governed on as opposed to what Republicans had actually run on.

Of course now that Democrats are in control of Congress they have moved precipitously back to the left. The conservatism they ran on is out the door and it’s liberal business as usual.

Every time a Republican runs on conservative principles, backed by a conservative track record, victory is the result if that Republican has the ability to actually communicate their conservative vision. Reagan was but one example.

One problem we face is the active attempt to redefine conservative. Under the new definition both George W. Bush and John McCain are conservative. Any true conservative rejects that notion. Both favor more government. Bush and the Republican Congress presided over the largest expansion of the federal government since LBJ. I would hardly call that conservatism. True conservatism calls for smaller, limited government, less government intrusion into our lives, lower taxes, less interference in the marketplace and strong national defense. The only items on that list that apply to George Bush are lower taxes and national defense. On all other issues Bush has been decidedly to the left of conservatives.

Fred Thompson is a conservative. While he does not have the administrative experience I might prefer, he has the right world view, the right ideas, the right track record and the ability to communicate his vision. That is what is needed. There may be other candidates that are better qualified in one sense or another but I have yet to see any candidate who is the total package. Thompson comes very close and if he enters the race, it could get very interesting.

Speaker Harrell goes on to promote McCain as a conservative. My question is, what is Speaker Harrell’s definition of conservative?

It seems that the term conservative, much like many other terms in our day, has undergone a redefinition. Apparently it no longer means committed to limited government. It no longer means being dedicated to the Constitution of the United States, as written. If John McCain can be considered a conservative then the very word conservative has lost its meaning altogether.

You will remember that McCain, in his misguided attempts to blame his own shortcomings on others, managed to bulldoze through McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. That legislation represents the single biggest assault on constitutionally protected political speech in my lifetime, perhaps ever! But Senator McCain was convinced that we needed it. In fact, he is not satisfied to stop there and now wants to go after the 521s that resulted from his previous legislation.

What McCain has done is make it more difficult for anyone to challenge incumbents while severely limiting the ability of individuals to make their voices heard when it comes to politics. If the First Amendment’s free speech clause protects anything, it protects political speech in all forms but John McCain, apparently, disagrees or doesn’t care. His view of things takes precedence over the Constitution it seems.

John McCain, who has worked hard to build his reputation as a maverick, is anything but a conservative. He is an opportunist. He wants to be President and has done everything in his power to keep his face in the news to that end. His protege, Lindsey Graham, is following close in his footsteps. Neither is a conservative and neither will ever have my support.

I still subscribe to a more traditional definition of conservative. I believe in limited government and individual responsibility to go along with individual rights. I believe, as did most of our founding fathers, that a religious electorate is necessary to a republican for of government. I believe that political speech is protected by the first amendment but pornography is not. Call me old fashioned but that is how I view conservatism. John McCain has a different view. He opposed the tax cuts that he now thinks should be extended but he will not say that he was wrong in opposing them in the first place. He supports the troop surge but it that appears to be political expediency. While his position cost him support initially, he has clearly gain conservative support as a result. He is attempting to remake himself in a conservative mold. He has rightly judged what most in the Republican party have missed. That is, that conservatives have had it with Republicans who abandon conservative principles. Had John McCain stood for these things all along he would have me in his camp. But not only has he NOT stood for these things, he will not repudiate his prior positions.

John McCain does not meet my definition of a conservative. He never has and I expect he never will. I still do not believe he can get the Republican nomination but if I am proved wrong, I will have to do a lot of soul searching before I could vote for him. His motivation is his personal aspirations. He is not motivated by principles and I cannot support anyone who votes for or opposes anything based on how it will reflect on him personally.

My first question is, what does co-equal mean? The Constitution grants specific duties and authority to each branch of government. While there is some overlap, generally each branch has different responsibilities and powers than the other branches. Congress, for example, has the power to create and pass legislation. The President and the judiciary do not. The President, on the other hand, is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces while the Congress and the judiciary are not. In what sense then can the three branches of government be said to be co-equal?

I submit that the very term “co-equal” is meaningless and that those using it do so not out of any realistic claims to authority but to put forth a propaganda campaign to a populace largely uneducated with regard to constitutional powers and the structure of government. They simply make a claim and expect Americans to accept it. The fact is, no branch is equal to another branch. All branches of government are equally important but they are not equal any more than an apple equals an orange.

Congress does indeed have one large power that could be used to effectively end the war in Iraq. That power is the ability to cut off funding. Our founding fathers gave them that power and it is completely legitimate. Using it, however, is a politically risky proposition. While Congress can cut of funding for the war, that does not obligate the President to bring the troops home. The President could, for example, continue the campaign in Iraq without funding and place the responsibility for the outcome on the Congress. At this juncture it is doubtful that Congress will take such a drastic step.

What other constitutional power does Congress have with regard to the war? None. Congress can pass non-binding resolutions every day for the duration of the session and their actions will not require anything of the President. He can go on his way doing what he is doing. True, they can make him pay a political price but they have no authority to force him to do anything militarily.

Claims that Congress has the authority to limit troops in this or that theater are false. True, Congress can pass any legislation it wants, including legislation mandating that the President limit troop strengths. The President, however, would be under no obligation to pay any attention to such legislation because the Congress does not have the Constitutional authority for passing it.

The caveat here is the judiciary. Regardless of Constitutional authority, the Supreme Court has shown a penchant for upholding legislation that is in flagrant opposition to the Constitution. McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform is but one example. So in any action the Congress may take, the Supreme Court becomes a wild card.

In the event that Congress passes legislation restricting troop strengths, the President would have several options. He could ignore such legislation and do what he thinks best with the troops in which case Congress would almost certainly sue the President in the Supreme Court. Alternatively, the President could sue Congress immediately. Either course leads to the Supreme Court. Should the Supreme Court rule against the President in such a situation, I submit that the President would have the Constitutional authority to ignore such a ruling. Indeed, the judiciary depends entirely on the executive for enforcement of its decisions. If the courts make a decision that clearly violates the Constitution I submit that the President not only has the ability to go against it, he has the duty to do so.

Lest anyone think I am engaging in partisan hyperbole let me say that my view on this does not depend on who happens to be the current occupant of the White House. While I would likely disagree with much of what a Democrat President stood for, his Constitutional authority does not depend on his positions on issues or his party affiliation. By definition, constitutional authority derives from the Constitution. Therefore, any President is duty bound to take his oath of office seriously and defend the Constitution against all enemies domestic and foreign. That includes the courts when they blatantly disregard the Constitution in favor of their own ideology.

The bottom line is this. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. As such it falls to him how and when to use them. Congress can bluster all it wants but they cannot change that balance of power.

The question remains, regardless of what most Americans believe or don’t believe, what are the realistic options regarding this war? Is a pullout, or as Democrats like to phrase it, a phased redeployment, actually a viable option? What can be expected if we do pull out? I think there are a couple of obvious answers that cannot be easily swept away.

First, American credibility will be decimated for the foreseeable future, regardless of who controls Congress or the White House. We have already had too many instances where we did not follow through with our commitments and the world already suspects that we cannot be depended upon to do what we say we will do. Perhaps that is a consequence of our form of government, although historically we had a much better reputation. From here on out we will not be able to gain allies in any serious international endeavor because the world will now that when it gets tough we bail out.

As serious as such a consequence may be, it is not as serious as the second difficulty with the redeployment strategy. As noted above, much of the world already expects that when it gets really tough the US will run. Indeed, Osama bin Laden said as much following our exodus from Somalia and that has been the stated strategy of Islamic fascists the world over. They know they cannot beat the US in a military sense. So their strategy has been to make it too costly to continue to engage them. They understand that the longer they drag this out the less support the President will have at home and, eventually, that support will dry up and he will have little choice but to withdraw.

So what happens then? The Islamic fascists declare their victory over America to start with. And as much as politicians may want to deny it, the claim will be valid. And with that victory will come an incredible increase in the ability of the Islamic fascists to recruit. Their approach will have been fully validated and new recruits will flood in in numbers never before imagined.

And who will be running this new army of Islamic terrorists? Probably Iran. And since we already know what Iran’s goals are, it will not be surprising if shortly thereafter the incidents of terrorism in Israel increase dramatically. Of course, Israel will only be the next step, not the last step. The Islamic fascists refer to Israel as the little Satan. Great Satan is reserved for the US. And if you labor under the false belief that they will change that view if we pull out of Iraq, lets just dispel that right now. Make no mistake, They WILL come after us here on American soil and their goals will far exceed 9/11.

While many Americans have fallen for the ridiculous assertion that Iraq has been a distraction from the war on terrorism, nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever you may believe about the start of the war, whether justified or not, the Islamic fascist themselves claim that Iraq is now the central front in that war. Anything short of complete and total victory there will be disastrous for the US and the world.

I am not the best prognosticator around and I don’t claim to have any sort of crystal ball. But I know this much, the troop increase that President Bush is starting to implement is, at worst, the minimum required at this moment. Regular readers will know that I am not a Bush cheerleader. He has often disappointed me because he is not a conservative. But he is the Commander in Chief and he is the only person in the world who is capable of waging this war, a war that absolutely must be waged. I don’t know if Bush will use these additional troops in an effective way. My gut instinct is that he won’t because America simply does not have the stomach to do what needs to be done. Still, the alternative to adding troops is far worse.

I urge all Americans who value freedom to support the President now. I’m not asking you to like him or approve of his overall job as President. I don’t approve of his overall performance. But he, our troops and the world need us to stand as one and win this conflict. The consequences of failure are simply too dreadful to contemplate.

It has been painfully clear to me for some time that the Democrats do not oppose the President’s ideas per se. What they really oppose is any possibility of a Bush success. The Democrats would rather lose the war in Iraq than allow a Bush victory there. They apparently believe they can deal with the mess later and if they can’t, they can blame in on Republicans. It’s all about winning the White House in ‘08.

This is an extremely short sighted view. I certainly understand either party pulling out the stops to win the White House. But are there no stops that should remain? How far is too far to go in the name winning power? It’s been often said that in times past politics stopped at the water’s edge but those days are long behind us.

The reality is, we are not engaged in a battle for control of the US government. We are engaged in a war for the very survival of western civilization. What I cannot understand is why Democrats can’t grasp that fact. It’s not just that losing in Iraq would be damaging to American prestige around the world, although it would. It’s not just that losing in Iraq will strengthen Iran, even though it will. The reality is this. If we don’t “do what is required” to defeat Islamic fascism our very existence as a free society will be in jeopardy.

There have been plenty of mistakes in Iraq. I have believed almost from the beginning that we needed more troops there. Regular readers know that I am not a big Bush supporter. He has made mistakes. But he, at least, seems to grasp the ramifications of a US lose in Iraq. He understands that we face, perhaps, the most dangerous, insidious enemy we have ever faced as a nation and as a civilization.

President Bush has my support in increasing troop strength in Iraq by twenty thousand and I say increase it even more if necessary. As Churchill said, sometimes is is not enough to do our best. Sometimes we must do what is required, regardless of the cost. Our forbears understood that and they did what was required. Are we willing to do the same today. Is freedom worth fighting and dying for? I say it is.

I am, of course, somewhat late in joining the debate surrounding the ISG Report and much of what I will say has been said in other ways by other people. Nevertheless, I believe it is important to reinforce what others before me have said. I will end with conclusions but first it is necessary to point out some of the more blatant flaws in the report itself.

The ISG Report (here after refereed to as the report) reaches at least one correct conclusions.

If the situation continues to deteriorate, the consequences could be severe. A slide toward chaos could trigger the collapse of Iraq’s government and a humanitarian catastrophe. Neighboring countries could intervene. Sunni-Shia clashes could spread. Al Qaeda could win a propaganda victory and expand its base of operations. The global standing of the United States could be diminished. Americans could become more polarized.

While the above includes many hypotheticals, it is basically accurate in my view. The remedy the ISG prescribes, however, seems designed to encourage the very outcomes hypothesized. One must wonder whether the ISG simply does not understand the dynamics at play with Islamic fascists or their stated goals and their true goals are the same.

Again, from the executive summary, “No country in the region will benefit in the long term from a chaotic Iraq. Yet Iraq’s neighbors are not doing enough to help Iraq achieve stability. Some are undercutting stability.” The final sentence illustrates the fallacy of the first sentence. Clearly Iran and Syria believe they have much to gain from instability in Iraq as demonstrated by their continued interference in Iraq. How then does the ISG conclude that Iran and Syria have an “interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq?”

The ISG has a real talent for stating the obvious.

In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran’s nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq.

Okay, not much to argue with here. Everyone would likely agree that Iran should stop providing arms to insurgents and “respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” and that Syria should “control its borders with Iraq.” The question is, how do we influence them to do so? The ISG would have us believe that all we need do is sit down at the table with them and explain it to them diplomatically using a series of incentives and disincentives. Well what have we been doing? Iran is developing nuclear weapons and the U.S. has worked diligently to stop that process with virtually no success. Without the cooperation of the rest of the western world and without the willingness to use “what ever means necessary” to achieve that goal, we will continue to meet with failure. The same is true of our attempts to stop Iraq and Syria from interfering with Iraq.

Both Iran and Iraq have interests that do not coincide with American interests. In fact, they cannot coincide with American interests because their are interested in destroying us and western civilization. They want Sharia law to rule the world. It is difficult to see how the U.S. or any other nation can negotiate with that. The only negotiating tool we really have at our disposal is our military strength and a willingness to use it as necessary. The conflict in Iraq, as fought thus far, has demonstrated repeatedly that we are NOT willing to use our military might! And therein lies the problem.

Cal Thomas had some interesting observations yesterday regarding the ISG report.

The ISG must not have noticed that Iran and Syria are largely responsible for destabilizing Baghdad. Syria is simultaneously using its Hezbollah proxy to undermine the elected Lebanese government. What possible reason would Iran and Syria have to stabilize Iraq so that the United States can leave behind a free nation? Iran and Syria would see a free Iraq as a threat to their own dictatorial regimes.

Quite right. Either the ISG is living in la la land or they have another agenda. Thomas had more to say.

There are noble calls for cooperation between Republicans and Democrats and between the White House and Congress, but the problem is not on our side. It’s on the other side. The ISG failed to deal with the religious motivations of those who believe their God wants us dead and who have no qualms about devising weapons of mass destruction to wipe out millions of us. “Infidel” diplomats are not about to influence dictators and mullahs who believe their “holy book” commands them to lie to the “cross worshippers” and “crusaders” in their own crusade for world dominance by force.

Note to ISG; Islamic fascists are not interested in negotiations, they simply want to kill us! They see our desire to negotiate as an indication of our weakness and they are more than happy to exploit that weakness. Indeed, that is precisely what they have been doing in Iraq for some time.

For the ISG, America is the ultimate cause of the problems in the Middle East. Our policies supporting Israel top the list of ISG complaints and they see any ultimate solution in Iraq involving a two state solution with Palestine and Israel. But again the ISG ignores the fact that several administrations have attempted just that and failed. And the reason for that failure has nothing to do with American diplomacy. It boils down to the fact the Islamic fascists are not interested in or willing to tolerate a two state solution. As the Iranian President has stated on numerous occasions, they will settle for nothing less that the destruction of Israel. That seems an awfully high price to pay for “stability” in Iraq and the Middle East and there is absolutely no reason to suspect that even the destruction of Israel would result in stability in the region.

Thomas concludes with a statement that mirrors what I have been saying for some time.

Enemies like this understand only one thing: power. They do not keep promises, or honor treaties and agreements that do not serve their primary interests. For them, those interests include humiliating the United States, securing Iraq for the acolytes of Osama bin Laden and then moving on to challenge America in other places and finally on our own soil. The problem is that if we wait to crush them until they reach our shores (and too many are already among us), it will be too late.

George Orwell said, “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” The Iraq Study Group Report won’t contribute to our safety. Finishing the job we started, by whatever means necessary, will.

Thomas uncovers what the ISG refuses to admit. We do not face a problem with a diplomatic solution. Diplomacy is doomed to failure because of the enemy we face and the longer diplomacy is used, the stronger the enemy grows.

That leads back to the conclusions of the ISG report. While a plurality on both sides of the aisle have embraced the ISG report, many have done so out of frustration and a desire to rid ourselves of the Iraq problem at any cost. And make no mistake, if the ISG recommendations are followed, the cost will be high indeed. Ultimately, the ISG recommendations, if followed, will result in a U.S defeat in Iraq and the complete loss of American credibility around the world. But that is minor compared to the victory the Islamic fascists would have achieved.

If the U.S. leaves Iraq without crushing the insurgency, if we leave with anything short of complete and total victory, the Islamic fascists will have everything they have worked for. They will have control of both Iran and Iraq, they will have nuclear weapons and they will then challenge America directly. And there is no doubt that should Iran get nuclear weapons, they will use those weapons in short order against Israel. Whether you you believe in a biblical Armageddon or not, what will follow such an American defeat will be exactly that.

So whether the ISG simply wants any way possible for America to gracefully exit Iraq with as little loss of credibility as possible or they have a hidden agenda, the result is the same. There will be no graceful exit. We may lie to ourselves and call it that but it will be nothing short of utter defeat and that defeat will not be because we did not have the ability to win. It will be because we did not have the will to win. Elan Journo writing for the Ayn Rand Institute put it this way.

America’s security depends on identifying precisely the enemy that threatens our lives–and then crushing it, rendering it a non-threat. It depends on proudly defending our right to live free of foreign aggression–by unapologetically killing the killers who want us dead.

(snip)

Victory in World War II required flattening cities, firebombing factories, shops and homes, devastating vast tracts of Germany and Japan. The enemy and its supporters were exhausted materially and crushed in spirit. What our actions demonstrated to them was that any attempt to implement their vicious ideologies would bring them only destruction and death. Since their defeat, Nazism and Japanese imperialism have essentially withered as ideological forces. Victory today requires the same: smashing Iran’s totalitarian regime and thus demoralizing the Islamist movement and its many supporters, so that they, too, abandon their cause as futile.We triumphed over both Japan and Germany in less than four years after Pearl Harbor. Yet more than five years after 9/11, against a far weaker enemy, our soldiers still die daily in Iraq. Why? Because this war is neither assertive nor ruthless–it is a tragically meek pretense at war.

The only solution in Iraq and indeed in the larger war with Islamic fascism is American willingness and resolve to fight to win, “by whatever means necessary.” Anything less is doomed to failure.

While ‘08 seems a long way off, it isn’t really so far. And the sooner we get to work, the better change we’ll have of moving the Republican Party back to conservatism and electing real conservatives in ‘08. We could even retake Congress and hold the White House.

Slip on over to America’s Victory ‘08 and see what’s going on. It’s well worth starting now.

“The country is sending a signal to both parties: We want you guys to
work together to solve problems. You’ve got Republicans running from
the far right much more toward the center. You’ve got a new breed of
Democrats this year in Jim Webb in Virginia and Bob Casey in
Pennsylvania, moving toward the center. So we may be working our way
toward the end of a deeply polarized country politically at the
national level.”

– Former anchor Tom Brokaw on NBC Nightly News November 6, election eve.

“Will Republicans move further to the right? Not if they got the
message of the election. Republicans lost because they abandoned the center.”

– CNN’s Bill Schneider on The Situation Room, Nov. 8.

Democrats would have us believe that conservatism is responsible for Republican losses. Their view is, of course, the precise opposite of what actually happened and what elected Republicans need to take away from the election. It is precisely the fact that, for the most part, House and Senate Republicans abandoned conservative principles for most of the last several years that they got their butts handed to them.

Geraldo Rivera, always good for a laugh, had this to say:

The Democratic wave that washed over American politics last night
washed away Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and swamped many Republicans
who tried to use the issue of illegal immigration to scare people
into voting for them. I am delighted to say that they got their butts kicked.

Yes, Geraldo is the guy to listen too. Yeah right! The fact is, House Republicans moved to the right too late to matter. Yes, they saved us temporarily from comprehensive immigration reform. Had they stuck with conservative principles throughout their terms, immigration would be a solved issue now, not the next object of demagoguery.

Republicans win when they run on conservative principles. Republicans maintain their seats when they govern from conservative principles. This tripe that the country has moved to the middle is seriously deluded! How can anyone reach such a conclusion based on three consecutive split elections? In fact, the only reason this election was split was that House Republicans spent the last few years trying to out spend Democrats!

If Republicans want to retake the House and Senate in ‘08 as well as retain the White House, they had better listen to their conservative constituents. They had better learn that conservatism is alive and kicking and they can’t win without it.

‘08 is a long way off. I don’t know about you but I’m not prepared to spend two years in campaign mode. While the ‘08 elections are important, there is little any of us can do today to impact them. But there are many other issues to be looked at and dealt with in the mean time.

For one thing, with dems in control of the Senate we know right off that judicial appointments will be far more difficult for President Bush. It is likely that there will be one more vacancy on the Supreme Court in the next two years and I expect the President to avoid judicial activists and appoint someone who will strictly interpret the Constitution rather than superimpose his/her own ideology on it. That will, of course, mean a battle. It will be difficult to even get such a nominee through the Senate Judiciary Committee. We need to be prepared for that fight because it is likely to be coming. Even for normal appointments to the federal bench there will be much difficulty.

Comprehensive immigration reform now seems much more likely. Conservatives oppose reforms so far offered and those are just the kinds of reforms that will be offered again. Amnesty, by what ever name, will sail through both Houses of Congress and the President is likely to sign such legislation. Unless we are prepared with strong grassroots efforts to stop it, it will be a slam dunk.

Future Speaker Nancy Pelosi has indicated the raising the minimum wage will be a top priority. Few issues have been subject to such demagoguery than the minimum wage. And few issues are so poorly understood by the electorate. We know that any significant increase in the minimum wage will have two effects. First, it will increase unemployment for those at the bottom of the wage scale. Second, it will further slow the economy when it has already been slowed too much by aggressive fed interest rate policy. If Democrats are not checked, we will likely be headed into a new recession. That might be good for Republican prospects in ‘08 but it isn’t good for the American people and only strong grassroots efforts can stop it.

The biggest and by far most important issue is the war with Islamic fascism. To date, Democrats have appeared not to take it seriously, preferring to handle terrorist events through law enforcement. If dems truly believe what they’ve preached, they will work diligently to get us out of this war and hunkered down back home. If that should happen, we will see many more 9/11 style attacks on the US. Again, this may be good for Republican prospects in ‘08 but it is decidedly bad for American and we have to do whatever we can to prevent such an eventuality.

It is incumbent on all of us to communicate with our members of Congress and let them know that we will not sit back and allow them to make America vulnerable. Most conservatives I know have a pretty good understanding of the enemy we face. It is an enemy that only understands strength and weakness. It is an enemy that will interpret any move by the US to withdraw as a sign that our will is failing us and that will embolden them. Indeed, they are already taking credit for the Republican defeat and for Rumsfeld’s resignation. In the coming days look for the Islamic fascists to move aggressively to increase and consolidate the power this election has given them.

We face dark and dangerous days ahead. We must face them with resolve and determination. I believe that all of civilization is threatened and we must face that threat head on and unified. To this point we have been anything but unified. I desperately hope that it will not take a few more 9/11 style attacks to convince the electorate that we cannot win unless we are united.

We will face these and other issues over the next two years. All of us must work to educate ourselves. No one is going to come to us and teach us what the truth is on any of these issues. The one thing you can count on politicians to do is demagogue the issues. Even the best of them is driven by elections and they are motivated to do and say what they think is necessary to be reelected. If we want to know the truth we have to do the work to discover it. We have to research the issues. We have to educate ourselves so we understand what is at stake and so we can, in turn, work to educate others. I’ve always believed that truth ultimately prevails over lies and deceit but that can only be true when people know the truth.

My contention is that the problem was that Republicans abandoned their conservative principles and their conservative base. Yes, they move somewhat back to conservatism as we got closer to the election but it wasn’t enough.

I am a Republican because I am a conservative, not the other way around. I have often felt abandoned by my party. On a whole host of issues, the GOP has not represented conservative voters or conservative principles. From No Child Left Behind to Medicare drug benefits to amnesty for illegal aliens (not undocumented workers!) to a plethora of rampant spending projects and general pork barrel spending. In many ways Republicans became what they replaced. Then, of course, there were the corruption scandals. Randy “Duke” Cunningham is in prison and he is just one of several who thought they could game the system.

The Republican Party left us. They tried to come back but it was too little, too late. If they had stood for conservative principles, if they had “danced with the one that brought them” then Iraq would not be the losing issue it’s become. Yes, it would still be an issue but it would not. by itself, cause this kind of crushing defeat. No, the Republican Party abandoned conservative principles and conservative voters and now they’ve paid the price.

So what lesson should Republicans learn from all this? Just that running on conservative principles isn’t enough. You cannot run on one set of principles and then, once elected, govern on a completely different set of principles. Conservatism is the backbone of the Republican Party and until Republicans wake up to that fact, they will not regain control.

Of course, credit must be given the the Democrats. They saw how the country was leaning and they took advantage of it. They ran conservative candidates and that turned out to be a winning strategy. How that will ultimately impact the Democrat Party remains to be seen but it is difficult to image the infusion of conservatives into the party won’t have a moderating effect. Either way, Nancy Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel crafted a winning strategy and won big. They worked hard and they won and they deserve full credit for that accomplishment.

So now it’s time for Republicans across the country to take stock of themselves and their party. Will they return to the principles that brought them to power in 1994 or will they seek refuge in self deception? Early responses seem to indicate they will return to principle but it is just too early to tell.

Today I write about the response of Democrats to Kerry’s actions. Watching Hannity and Colmbs last night I was amazed to see Alan Colmes defend Kerry, constantly repeating Kerry’s defense as if it was believable! Colmes repeated Kerry’s assertion that it was crazy to think that a war time veteran would ever do such a thing. Selective memory is wonderful thing, isn’t it? Colmes and other Kerry defenders seem to forget that John Kerry has a history of attack our troops in war. Going back to his testimony before a Senate committee during Vietnam, Kerry has repeatedly made baseless accusation against our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. Most recently he accused the troups in Iraq of terrorizing women and children in the dead of night! Democrat supporters pretend these and other Kerry fax paux never happened. Even this Senator John Breaux is on TV defending Kerry along with countless Democrat strategists and politicians.

No one but John Kerry is responsible for the words he spoke. He alone can be credited with the content of his remarks. But as the Democrat nominee for President in 2004, Kerry is not just any Democrat. He was the leader of his party and as such, others in his party must deal with what he says. They, however, along with him, continue to defend him and blame Republicans. As I said yesterday, you can tell a lot about a man by his response to his own mistake. The same is true of groups. Do they take responsibility and deal with the situation or do they attempt to blame others, thereby shaming themselves?

The answer in this case is clear. Like Senator Kerry, the Democrats refuse to deal with the issue, preferring to blame Republicans for the fact the issue even exists. Their presidential nominee said what he said but it’s all Republican’s fault. Yes indeed, you can tell a lot about people and groups by how they deal, or fail to deal, with their mistakes. Like Senator Kerry, the Democrat party doesn’t measure up and it will end up hurting them next week.

They obviously understand, on some level at least, that this is a problem for them. Senator Kerry had numerous campaign stops planned for the coming days, stumping for various Democrat candidates. No more. No one wants to be seen with Senator Kerry. Democrats know he was wrong and they know he should apologize. They just can’t bring themselves to say so.

You can tell a lot about a man or a group by how they deal, or fail to deal, with their mistakes.

Technorati Tags: Kerry, Democrats, Troops, Education

Throughout all this I have had a nagging feeling that so called “values voters” contrary to conventional wisdom, will not stay home on election day. I have tended to believe that, like me, they understand what is at stake and they will “do the right thing” so to speak and go vote for Republicans. But I’ve also wondered if that isn’t just the typical tendency to believe that others think like I do.

If there is one thing I’ve endeavored to do, both personally and in this blog, it is to be as honest as I can be. I recall a political science project I had to do for a class on campaigns and public opinion during the 2004 elections. My assignment was to follow all 34 Senate races. I had to know who the candidates were, what the issues in each race were, what the polls were showing and, in the end, I had to make predictions. Another student in the class was doing the same project I was. When it came time for our predictions I predicted that Republicans would pick up seats in the Senate. The other student predicted a Democrat take over of the Senate. My question for him at the time was, “do you really believe that or is your prediction just wishful thinking?”

Of course my predictions turned out to be accurate and his were wildly off base. Both he and I had looked at the same races, the same polling data and the same issues and we had reach wildly different conclusions. I ended up missing only one prediction in all 34 races and that was Colorado, which ended up surprising me. But my goal throughout the project was to try to be as objective as I could manage. Of course I am not objective in terms of desired outcome but if my opinions are to be worth anything to others, my analysis of the races needed to be objective.

My goal in this blog is no different. While I am distinctly partisan and unashamedly so, I have to be able to look at the facts and reach conclusions that are, not simply justifiable, but ultimately accurate, if I am to be taken seriously.

In light of all I’ve just said, I hope my readers will pay attention to what I am about to say. It may appear to some to be wishful thinking. In the end, I suppose it may turn out to be just that but I don’t think so. I think I’ve stumbled on some very good news for conservatives.

_____________________________________

I’ve been a Rush fan for years but I’ve found myself listening to him very little of late. There are a number of reasons for that, none of which have much to do with him. But yesterday I found myself tuned in to his show. He was talking about a podcast from Advertising Age entitled Opinion Fatigue: Inside The Marketing-Research Crisis, in which the author, Jack Neff, was lamenting the declining ability of companies to do effective product research. The author was concerned because it was becoming increasingly difficult to reach enough households to get a sufficient polling sample so the results can be considered reliable. There are, apparently, several reasons for this. Among them are people who use caller ID to screen phone calls, those who simply won’t talk to polling companies and those who have moved exclusively to cell phones so they are not reachable by pollster at all. This makes it almost impossible for pollsters to get accurate samples. And then there are those who, for what ever reason, simply lie to pollsters.

While the article dealt specifically will product research, the pollsters refereed to are no different from political pollsters. Both face the same difficulties. So if product research firms can’t get accurate samples, there is no reason to believe the political pollsters fare any better. And who are the people least likely to answer the phone or to be off the grid entirely by virtue of having gone totally cellular? I submit that they are, by and large, conservatives. Of course we never hear any talk that pollsters can’t get accurate samples. But according to the Ad Age article, the base for an accurate sample is at least 30% call acceptance rate and what they are typically getting is closer to 20%.

If I am right, that means that the current crop of polls are from inaccurate samples and they will be strongly biased to the left. There can be little doubt that, if this is correct, the pollsters are aware of it. And since many of the pollsters are in the media, they are also aware of it, yet they continue to report the polls as if they are accurate. I think that is by design.

There are two reasons for conducting a poll. The first is to find out where the public stands on an issue or issues. The second is to attempt to influence public opinion. We are all familiar with push polls, polls designed to illicit a particular response. This is similar except the poll itself is designed to influence wider public opinion. So if the public at large can be convinced that most of their neighbors have given up on the Republican party, perhaps they’ll give up to! We saw this in the 2004 presidential election where the Democrats managed to slant exit polls, knowing full well that the results would be leaked before the polls closed. The desired result was to suppress Republican turnout by implying that Kerry had already won so there was no reason to waste time going to vote. Thankfully, it didn’t work.

The second piece of information I gleaned from Rush was from an op-ed in the Boston Globe entitled Cleaning up the Mess by Robert Kuttner. The premise of the article is that for Democrats, winning the mid-term elections might not be such a good thing! Kuttner goes on a totally partisan rant about budget deficits, the war in Iraq and his view that Bush has so screwed up everything that it will be a tough road for Democrats to clean up the mess. Kuttner opens with this paragraph:

I’ve heard smart people argue that George W. Bush has left such a mess that maybe the Democrats would be better off just letting the mess fall on the Republicans in 2008.

After all, there seems to be no good way out of Iraq. The administration dithered for nearly six years on Korea, and now we have Pyongyang with nukes, not to mention Iran’s nuclear challenge. And the budget and trade deficits continue to be time bombs. Why should the opposition party want to share responsibility for these serial disasters?

He goes on to list all the failures he perceives in the Bush administration and why they would be difficult at best for a Democrat controlled Congress to deal with before the 2008 presidential election. Beginning with budget deficits, Kuttner claims Republicans have caused the country to bleed red ink.

Begin with the budget deficit. As recent elections have shown, there is little political profit in being the fiscally responsible party. Democrats, once known as the Keynesian party of deficits, have led two thankless rounds of fiscal stewardship, cleaning up after Ronald Reagan’s tax-cutting orgy in 1982-83, and then mopping up the red ink of Reagan’s second term and that of Bush I with the heroic Budget Act of 1993, passed in both houses by a single vote.

Ignore, for the moment, Kuttner’s completely ignorant view of tax cuts and deficits (Bush has cut the deficit in half three years sooner than projected. The Bush tax cuts, just like the Reagan tax cuts, dramatically increased revenue to the federal government). What is the point of Kuttner’s op-ed? Why, just three weeks before the mid-term election, does Kuttner come out with this piece? Rush opines, and I tend to agree, that he is setting the stage for a Democrat loss. Remember, Democrats are infamous for taking defeat and calling it victory.

The fact is, Democrat pollsters and those in the know in the Democrat party are well aware of what the polls show. They know what the shortcoming of the polls are, even if they are unwilling to share those shortcomings with the public.

Then, also from Rush, there is the Republican irritation with Bush for not having a plan for the eventuality that the Democrats may take control of Congress. Bush seems strangely optimistic. In his interview last night on O’Reilly, Bush stated flat out that he is convinced Republicans will prevail come November.

Now, the left has attempted to paint Bush as a moron for more than six years but honest pundits admit that Bush is no moron. He has repeatedly painted Democrats into a corner and he’s pulled off some amazing feats in foreign policy and in his legislative efforts. No, Bush is no moron. He is a Harvard MBA who had better grades that did John Kerry! So it is fair to ask whether Bush knows something the rest of us don’t know.

Liberal pundits will think what Bush knows is some sort of late October surprise but I think it is more about the polling data. Bush knows just what the Liberal pollsters know, that their polls are wildly skewed to the left. And I suspect that the object of liberal hatred, Karl Rove, has polling units that are more effective than the liberal pollsters. Who really knows? The bottom line is, Bush is planning for victory, not failure.

Admittedly, there is a lot of conjecture in my analysis. I may be guilty of what I am striving to avoid, wishful thinking. But I don’t think so. Each of these items, taken individually, doesn’t add up to much. But collectively they seem to me to form a trend. Combined with outstanding economic performance, a dramatically shrinking budget deficit and the fact that, despite the best efforts of Democrats, most people are still fearful that this country will be less safe if Democrats are in control, I find it difficult to accept the idea that Democrats will win in November.

I could be wrong but I’m going out on a limb. I predict that Republicans will hold on to both houses of Congress.

Certainly everyone, including the Bush administration, prefers diplomatic solutions over military solutions. But rational people understand that sometimes, diplomacy isn’t enough. Diplomacy failed utterly with Nazi Germany. Was that because Great Britain and others didn’t have effective diplomats? Was it because their approach to a diplomatic solution was the wrong approach and another might have worked? Or was it simply that Hitler was not going to be deterred by diplomacy? Was it that Hitler was willing to milk the diplomatic process to gain more time to achieve his goals.

Generally speaking Republicans subscribe to the second set possibilities. Democrats, it appears, subscribe to the first. They seem to believe that there is no situation that cannot be solved diplomatically. The only question is, what is the correct diplomatic approach? Based on this belief, every situation that results in military conflict is a failure of diplomacy in the sense that whoever directed the diplomatic effort chose the wrong diplomatic course. The implication is that another approach would have been successful.

Interestingly, when a Democrat is in the White House, Democrats in general are much less willing to apply the standard they espouse when a Republican is in the White House. What does that imply? Well, it implies one of two things, neither of which is flattering to Democrats.

The first possible implication is that Democrats don’t really believe what they say they believe. It implies that they agree with us that, in the end, some situations do not have a diplomatic solution and require military solutions. But they are willing to pretend to a belief in order to politically harm a sitting president.

The second possible implication is that Democrats do believe what they say they believe but they are unwilling to apply it to a president from their own party because it would be politically damaging to do so.

Either way, the implication is that, for Democrats, politics trumps belief. Political advantage is more important than principle. Another word for that is demagogue. Indeed, either way you slice it, you come up with Democrats being demagogues.

Yes, there are times when diplomacy fails. Every administration wants to exhaust the diplomatic options before moving on to more hostile, militaristic options. Every administration understands that, while diplomacy must always be pursued, sometimes it will fail. Failure, however, does not automatically mean that the approach was wrong. Sometimes it simply means diplomacy was never going to work. It has to be tried but it will not always work. That means diplomatic failure does not necessarily say anything about the attempt or the administration making the attempt.

Democrats, however, see in diplomatic failure, an opportunity to score political points. Since the greatest good, in their view, is for them to regain power, it is always acceptable to demagogue an issue for political gain. The end justifies the means, in other words.

We now face a dangerous situation with North Korea. One commenter on another site said he didn’t see how Bush could possibly be helped by the North Korean nuclear test. He said, “All it shows is that yet another piece of their national security approach has been a dismal failure.” In his view, Bush is responsible for Kim Jong Il’s actions. It never occurs to him that Clinton’s approach was no better and, arguably, may have been worse.

It must ultimately be accepted that diplomacy has little chance of working with any leader who cannot be trusted to honor the agreements he makes. Kim Jong Il made specific agreements with the Clinton administration. He did not keep them. Is that Bush’s fault? It is not and .iIt is irrational to expect a liar to keep his word.

The situation Bush now faces remains, for the moment, a diplomatic one because we don’t have a lot of military options just now. But eventually we will have to make military options. North Korea is not going to change and if they are allowed to continue in the direction they are headed, it will embolden other megalomaniacal leaders to pursue similar policies.

In the end the real diplomatic failure will be the failure to recognize when diplomacy is at an end. It has been said that war is merely diplomacy by other means. True diplomatic failure is the unwillingness to accept that diplomacy has ceased to be fruitfuland it is time to move on to “other means.”

Thomas says that congressional Republicans “seem to have run out of ideas.” He goes on to say,

They now ask for votes on two levels, neither of which is appealing. The first is that the Democrats would do a worse job than Republicans, which is like choosing which of two ugly sisters to take on a date. The second is they crave power for its own sake. Republicans have failed to give voters sufficient reason to vote for them, except for one that trumps all the rest – they can better defend the country.

That’s not a generally rosy picture but it is accurate. Like the perpetual argument of the Democrats, Republicans have been reduced to saying “we aren’t as bad as they are.” But even in that unenviable position, the Republicans still hold a superior argument to Democrats because they actually have ideas and plans for dealing with terrorists. The Democrats have nothing but opposition. As Thomas said,

Democrats have no plan for keeping America safe, or winning the war against the fanatics. They have opposed most of the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance methods. They have opposed aggressive interrogation tactics designed to get information to protect us, including opposition to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where detainees are treated better than they could expect if they were detained in their homelands.

<snip>

For all of their promises to do a better job of fighting this war, Democrats have no plan, other than retreat. That is the plan the terrorists have for us. Retreat is not in their playbook. The terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere don’t speak of timetables for withdrawal or bringing their fighters home in time for Ramadan. They’re in it for the long haul. They believe we are not. A victory by Democrats next month will validate their view and encourage them to fight harder.

That pretty well sums up the Democrat position. The question is, is the American electorate paying enough attention to know that? The Democrats, particular in the MSM and the blogosphere, have worked overtime to obscure those facts because they know they are hurt by them. The challenge for Republicans and conservatives is to get that message out. I’m doing my part.