I am violating my own marketing principles – regarding my blog’s success – by posting a second commentary on the upcoming election; not only by ignoring my own constraints about revisiting any one issue too soon, but by repeating arguments I’ve made in earlier essays.

In this case, I’m making an exception.

Over the last few weeks, because of the position I’ve taken about the ineptitude of the Republican party’s tactics and strategy, I’ve taken a lot of heat. I’ve been called everything from a turncoat to a “Libertarian” (like that’s an insult) to “evil”  to an apologist for the Left (so ludicrous an idea it’s never deserved comment) to naïve to … well, I could go on for a while. You get the point.

As it happens, I’m not the only one who takes my position. Today, 29 October 2006, Dick Armey – a died-in-the-wool conservative and “Contract With America” signatory – seems to agree with me in an editorial published today in, of all places, the Washington comPost. Here’s the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/27/AR2006102701482.html

In his commentary, Armey also decries the sad state of the Republican party, and its loss of its guiding compass of principle. I just reviewed the column with an eye toward extracting some quotes to include in this essay for those who didn’t want to click the link and read the entire Armey column.

Here are some of the more salient parts:

"Somewhere along the road to a "permanent majority," the Republican Revolution of 1994 went off track. For several years, we had confidence in our convictions and trusted that the American people would reward our efforts. And they did.

"But today, my Republican friends in Congress stand on the precipice of an electoral rout. Even the best-case scenarios suggest wafer-thin majorities and a legislative agenda in disarray.

"Republican lawmakers forgot the party's principles, became enamored with power and position, and began putting politics over policy. Now, the Democrats are reaping the rewards of our neglect -- and we have no one to blame but ourselves

"Gingrich and I and a handful of true believers in Ronald Reagan's conservative vision set the goal of retaking the House. The "Contract With America" outlined our platform of limited government...   In 1994, this vision was validated when Republicans took 54 seats in the House, eight seats in the Senate and control of both houses of Congress.

"Yet despite such successes, we didn't learn the right political lessons. A few months before the victory on welfare, we lost the battle over the federal government shutdown of 1995, when we were outmaneuvered by Clinton, a masterful political operator. After that fight, too many Republicans apparently concluded that America wanted bigger government. This misreading was the first step on the road away from the Reagan legacy...We emerged as a wounded party; we stopped trusting the public; and we internalized the wrong lesson.

"Now spending is out of control. Rather than rolling back government, we have a new $1.2 trillion Medicare prescription drug benefit, and non-defense discretionary spending is growing twice as fast as it had in the Clinton administration. Meanwhile, Social Security is collapsing while rogue nations are going nuclear and the Middle East is more combustible than ever. Yet Republican lawmakers have taken up such issues as flag burning, Terri Schiavo and same-sex marriage.

"The leadership must remember that the modern conservative movement is a fusion of social and fiscal conservatives united in their belief in limited government. The party must keep both in the fold. Republicans also need to get back to being the party of big ideas.

"The likely Republican losses in next week's elections will not constitute a repudiation of the conservative legacy that drove the Reagan presidency and created the Contract With America. To the contrary, it would represent a rejection of big government conservatism.

"Republicans have been setting the stage for this outcome for nearly a decade, running from themselves and their own principles. We will not find ourselves by conforming to the status quo, but by returning to our Reagan roots.

"When we act like us we win. When we act like them we lose. Let's win."

Perfectly stated.

Yes, you heard it here first!

Before Fox News, Townhall.com, the Washington Times, Drudge, New York Treason, Al Jezheera West (LA Times), Washington ComPost, Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, or any other news source to which you may subscribe. Ted Kennedy is on a feeding tube and is dependant on it for total support, even as an occasional walking aid, as you can see for yourself in the following picture, captured by our own intrepid undercover photojournalists.

Asked to comment, Senator Kennedy issued the following statement (please listen to the following recording, as transcription proved impossible):

“I just want to shay it’sa crack, I mean crop, I mean prop, I mean… or at leastn it’s so lame because I’m lame an neeed the crotch of the… thing, y’know like

“What? I cannnnnn’t shay tha… wha? Imean huh?

“N‘kaa-ay. Becuz I rully can, y’know? ‘s okay. Stolie’s good… yep…Oh, YEAH!…Smirny, too…

“ANYhoozies… yep. Bobbo, you baboon …[sound of snorting or chuckling] brin the car round… no, awl drive…werewsI?

“OH, YEEEeeeAAAaaawwrg!! Hehheh, that Deaniack, whottaguy… like Barack Osama, er er Obahama er er Bahama-mama… ANYYyyhoooo… Kenneddeddeddys ‘re prouid an servaantishis… y’know, like pubis service.

Huh?”

Unfortunately, the tape ends at that point. Security personnel on Kennedy’s personal staff entered the area and prevented any further electronic recording. However, it is difficult to assess whether or not Kennedy’s feeding tube issue is life threatening, for – as you just heard for yourself – his communication skills don’t seem to have been at all impaired.

This is BrianR, with this late breaking news, signing out.

As next week’s mid-term election looms, we are at the height of the political silly-season. The din from both sides of the aisle is deafening. From the Left we have Pelosi, Kerry, Dean, Murtha, Reid and others screaming shrilly about Foleygate, their secret plan for the Iraq war, and how much they hate George Bush (who, interestingly enough, isn’t running for anything). From the Right we have Hannity, Limbaugh, Medved, and others proclaiming that the sky is going to fall if we have to say the words “Speaker Pelosi”, and life as we know it will come to an end.

I think everyone needs to get a grip, and take a chill pill.

First of all, if the War on Terror (WOT) is the driving issue, let’s get it in perspective. The Cold War lasted about 40 years, and Ronald Reagan finally won it without us ever having to fire a shot at the USSR. During the Cold War, there were many proxy actions (Vietnam and Korea coming immediately to mind). There were Republican and Democrat administrations and Congresses during that time. There were ups and downs, but we ultimately prevailed. The WOT has been going on for about thirteen years now, since the first WTC bombing, though we’ve only been aware of it for about five. Whatever happens in Iraq, the WOT is going to last for a long time still to come. Regardless of what happens next week, there will be both Democrats and Republicans at the helm between now and its conclusion, current chicken-littleing notwithstanding. The ultimate outcome – barring terrorist deployment of a true WMD against us – will most likely be determined by the same factor that did in the USSR: depletion of the enemy’s resources.

In other words, no matter what happens in the current election, the Democrats will at some point have their chance to run things. That’s simply political reality based on the cyclical nature of American politics.

Will that be a good thing for the country? Probably not, given the current Democrat positions, strategies, and philosophies. Will it be fatal to the country? Again, barring WMDs, no. We survived Jimmy Carter, didn’t we? There may even be an up side.

There’s an old saying that goes “Sometimes it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt”. The Democrats have been safely sniping from the sidelines now for years, and they’ve been given a lot of latitude. If they take control of either or both houses next week, what’s the worst that can happen? They’ll have, at best, slim majorities so it will be hard if not impossible for them to pass any radical legislation. Further, even if they do, there’s George Bush, sitting in the White House and never having to worry about running for office again, veto pen in hand (assuming he remembers where he put it). But the important point is that they’ll be then forced to perform, and their actions will provide the real information people need to make truly informed choices in what I consider a much more important event, the upcoming 2008 election, in which the Presidency is up for grabs and no incumbent is running, as well as all House seats and one-third of the Senate.

A Democrat win this time, then, essentially means a gridlock situation for two years (which is actually fine with me), and most probably a very resounding Democrat defeat in the all-important 2008 election.

Which brings us to another issue. If the Democrats do, in fact, prevail in the upcoming election it will not have been because they’ve presented persuasive arguments; after all, their whole campaign essentially boils down to “we hate Bush”. It will be because the Republicans will once again have demonstrated their astounding capability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They have failed to set the tone and agenda of the debate, defaulting that to the Democrats. They have failed to be aggressive in setting forth a clear message of values, essentially boiling their whole campaign down to the mirror image of the Democrats’: “we hate Pelosi”. They have wandered far from the essential roots of their success, conservative values and small government. If they lose, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

The most resounding Presidential victories in recent history were the election and re-election of Ronald Wilson Reagan, as well as the same for Nixon. In both cases, the candidates underscored the philosophical differences between themselves and their opponents, and especially in Reagan’s case made crystal clear the bedrock conservative principles for which he stood, a message that resonated not only with the base of the party, but Americans across the land. This country is essentially, at its roots, a Judeo-Christian society with strong and traditional conservative values. The reason none of Reagan’s successors have been able to achieve the type of results at the ballot that he did is that they have allowed those values to be diluted in their pandering quest for votes. In other words, in trying to be all things to all people, they end up being nothing to anyone, and you end up with the majority of the voters casting their ballots for the least objectionable candidate, which is why in the current era we end up with these races being virtual dead heats.

Further, some conservative pundits – such as Medved and other columnists on this site – have taken the tack of saying that conservatives who don’t vote for Republican candidates are, essentially, traitors or cowards. Aside from the fact that this kind of rhetoric is NOT going to sway many people who think for themselves, it is even counterproductive, as it’s downright repulsive. Evidently, in their minds, conservatives are supposed to act just like the sheeple they so deride on the other side of the aisle, who enter the voting booth and vote for anything with a “D” behind it. Bad for them, but good for us if the letter’s an “R”.

Double standard, anyone?

Important update 25 Oct 2006

Dick Mountjoy -- a solid, conservative Republican who, when he held statewide office was a staunch Second Amendment supporter -- is running against Dianne Feinstein for the US Senate seat up for grabs this election. Today, I was in contact with Mountjoy's office, and the Republican Party has failed to provide any support at all for Mountjoy's campaign.

I thought this was an important election. Isn't that what everybody's saying?

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
George Santayana

In the midst of this election season, speculation is running high as to who will be the nominees from each party come the 2008 elections for President. Many names are bandied about: Clinton, McCain, Giuliani, Reid, Kerry, Romney, et al.

As a conservative, my particular concern -- and therefore my thoughts -- turn to the Republican offerings. At this point, the names most often mentioned are McCain, Giuliani, and Romney. I’ll preface by saying flat out I don’t like any of them. None of them are supporters of the Second Amendment. Giuliani is quite liberal on several issues: abortion, illegal aliens, and gun bans come immediately to mind. McCain’s a loose cannon, a member of the Gang of 14, Keating 5, co-author of the McCain/Feingold bill that is the biggest suppression of First Amendment rights in the history of this country.

At this point it would be helpful to remember that in 1990, two years before Clinton was elected to his first term, he was an obscure governor of an obscure state, barely a blip on anyone’s political radar. When he was first discussed seriously as a presidential candidate, it was considered almost a joke.

But here’s where history starts to come into play, and what the Republican party needs to remember.

The common wisdom now is that Perot’s third-party candidacy cost Bush 1 the election. But there have been third-party candidacies before. Why was this one different? That’s the important question. Bush was the heir apparent to Reagan, arguably the most popular President in at least the second half of the Twentieth Century, a man who swept into office in two landslide victories. Bush rode easily into a first-term Presidency on very long coattails.

But Bush forgot the Reagan legacy of American values and conservatism. He talked about his “thousand points of light”, a metaphor that never seemed to make any sense, then broke his pledge of “Read my lips. No new taxes!” He paved the way for his own demise, as conservatives disgusted with his catering to Democrats and obvious lack of principle looked for any alternative, and cast millions of votes for Perot.

When Clinton stood for re-election, his opponents were Bob Dole and Jack Kemp, another pair of appeasers. They were almost throw-away candidates, and their campaign was so lackluster it was truly pathetic. Neither presented any conservative credentials, nor could they be considered candidates that could inspire the party’s base in any way.

And there’s where we reach the hub of the issue. The base of the Democrat party can be counted on to reliably vote in elections, regardless of the quality of the candidates. They are animated by the idea of changing America into something they want it to be (as opposed to what it is), and realize the means to do that are the reins of power. It is, in my opinion, a cynical approach to governance.

On the other hand, the base of the Republican party is animated more by principle, and if their candidate seriously violates their principles they simply refuse to turn out in the numbers necessary for that party’s victory. This is the lesson of history the Republican party simply refuses to learn.

Bush 2’s recent elections should underscore this point: against two arguably ridiculous candidates (Gore and Kerry), Bush still only managed to eke out the slimmest of victories, and those were more due to votes placed against his opponents by interest groups such as gun owners and right-to-lifers. In either case, had there been a viable third-party candidate, Bush may well have lost. He may well owe his presidency to the candidacy of Ralph Nader.

The Republican party needs to take a serious look at the direction it seems to be heading. If they continue to try to curry favor with their opponents in the media and the national political scene, they are heading for disaster. If they refuse to embrace and promote true conservative principles, they are heading for disaster. As I wrote earlier, fortunately we’re still two years away, a political lifetime. Maybe 2008’s candidate hasn’t yet hit the political radar. Let’s hope so. Because I, and I’m sure very many like me, just can’t see myself voting for anyone under discussion at this point.