Where DO We Go From Here?

This song goes out to all of the disgruntled Conservatives out there. You know who you are...you are the ones who are saying that no matter what you say or what you do, the Republican Party is a mess and nothing can clean it up. Well Logical Lady Michelle Malkin has a few words for you!

"Quo vadis," conservatives? It's the ancient, apocryphal question the apostle Peter asked Jesus while fleeing persecution in Rome. Where are you going? Where do we go from here? ...Dissatisfied with the flawed crop of GOP candidates who lacked the energy, organizational skills, and ideological strength to carry the conservative banner and ignite your passions? Then pay attention to the next generation of Republican state legislators who do vote consistently to lower your taxes, uphold the sanctity of life, defend marriage, and cut government spending. Support their re-election bids. Reward them for standing with you instead of their Democrat pponents and the liberal media.
Look at Barack Obama. Four years ago, he was in the Illiniois legislature. Now, he's on the cusp of the presidency.

BINGO Michelle! This is something that I was saying two years ago. You say you are mad at President Bush for his free-spending, open borders ways...you say you are mad at Governor Green Jeans for his sophomoric enviro-centric ways????? Then get behind someone like Rep. Mark Buesgens (HD35B) or Rep. Steve Gottwalt (HD15A) or Rep. Chris DeLaForest (HD49A) or Logical Lady Rep. Mary Liz Holberg (HD36A). This is just a small sample of some of the FANTASTIC conservative representation that we have right here in Minnesota. Any one of these folks could be our next Governor, Senator or even President!

These are the kinds of future leaders we have in this state, but in order for that to happen we all have work to do. We ALL need to get out and identify who the "good" conservative leaders are in this state and we need to GET BEHIND THEM! We need to support them with our money and with our time. It is simply childish to punish good conservatives like we did Tim Wilken and Phil Krinkie (in 2006) by staying home because we are ticked at the top of the ticket!
If you are really that determined to "make a statement" go to the polls and don't vote for the candidate that you are ticked off with. There are a lot of really good candidates down ticket that are busting their butts to earn your vote. Your one vote may not adversely affect the Presidential or Gubernatorial candidate that you are mad at, but it will hurt some really good folks who can actually get the work done that we need to have done!

If you don't go to the polls at all, no one will notice. However, if your Congressman gets more votes in your district than the Presidential candidate does, or if you State Senator gets more votes in your district than the Governor does - THAT will get their attention!

It's Finally Here!

After I get done with my precinct caucuses, I will be over at Heading Right talking about the results of the night. Please join us as we dissect the results and what it will mean for the Republican race going forward!

Good News For The Romney Camp?

Coming off of Governor Romney’s win in Maine, comes some pre-Super-Di-Dooper Tuesday news that, if accurate, could be the turnaround his supporters have been longing for (all links courtesy of Townhall.com).

First is this from Denver.

Mitt Romney enjoys a dominant, 19-point lead over John McCain among Republicans likely to attend Colorado caucuses Feb. 5, with Mike Huckabee trailing and Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani barely registering a nod, according to a Denver Post poll.

Reuters/Zogby has Romney up 3 points on McCain in California and Rasmussen has them tied.

Three days ago, Rasmussen had Senator McCain comfortably ahead in Georgia....today he is up by only 2 points and Insider Advantage has Romney actually up by 1 point.

Now you all know how I feel about polls and polling - having seen how the sausage is made. However, if accurate, this shows a substantial shift in support toward Governor Romney since the last debate.

Can Governor Romney turn success in snowy Maine into Super-Di-Dooper Tuesday success? We shall soon see.

Where's "Our" Message?

Found this on the website of Minnesota 2020, the website of Matt Entenza's new think tank.

It's pop quiz time, folks. Question #1: what's the progressive message? Question #2: what's the conservative message? Question #3: Was question 1 or 2 easier to answer?Unfortunately, the answer to question 3 is question 2. Everyone knows the conservative message: no taxes, no gay marriage, no immigration, and no abortions. The conservative message isn’t the problem.

Well now obviously author John Van Hecke either has not been paying attention to the Republicans campaigning for President or he doesn't care that he is flat out mis-representing the Conservative position. So of course, I feel the need to debunk just a few of these misconceptions.

Let's start with the first misconception...that we are against all taxes! We are not against taxes, we are against the the idea of punishing people for hard work and success by taking away half (or more) of their hard earned income. We are against the taking money from group A and giving it to group B. We are all for paying for the things that government SHOULD be spending money on....things like roads and bridges and national defense. We are all for paying money to cities to plow roads and provide police and fire departments. We are even perfectly fine with paying money to the state to provide a "safety net" for those times when people are "in need". What we are against is taking money from someone who works 50-60 hours a day and giving it to someone who is able to work but refuses to do so. We are against taking money from a single mom with two kids in daycare and giving it to a mom who stays home but expects the government to feed and clothe and house her kids!

The second misrepresentation is that gay marriage is an issue this year. Not one of the candidates running - not even Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee is campaigning on this. They are campaigning on national security and economic policy and yes even the Iraq War. Not one word on gay marriage.

The 3rd misrepresentation is that conservatives are "against immigration". We are not against immigration. We are all for immigration....LEGAL IMMIGRATION where the immigrant files the appropriate paperwork to get the right student or work visa. We are for the fair treatment of those who play by the rules and we don't want to see the cheaters rewarded for cheating the system.

The final misrepresentation is that we are campaigning on abortion. Now I watched every single minute of the last two debates and the only time Roe v. Wade was brought up the candidate who was asked the question rightly responded that it is settled law and until that changes there is not much he can do about it. Now it is true that conservatives are working to change that law, but it is because we want to make sure that the most innocent among us - the unborn children - have the same rights to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the rest of us enjoy. Again - it is only fair....

Now if Minnesota 2020 wants to run a campaign against conservatives that is based on issues that we are not campaigning on, that is their choice. However, they should be aware that we will vigorously continue to push the real issues that we are campaigning on...tax equity, national and economic security and true equal rights for all.

Faint Praise

Yesterday, the New York Times endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary. Today they are doing their darnedest to tear her candidacy apart! In addition to the editorial that I talked about here, they have an Op-Ed piece on why a "co-presidency" is a bad thing!

SENATOR Hillary Clinton has based her campaign on experience — 35 years of it by her count. That must include her eight years in the White House.
Some may debate whether those years count as executive experience. But there can be no doubt that her husband had the presidential experience, fully. He has shown during his wife’s campaign that he is a person of initiative and energy. Does anyone expect him not to use his experience in an energetic way if he re-enters the White House as the first spouse?
Mrs. Clinton claims that her time in that role was an active one. He can hardly be expected to show less involvement when he returns to the scene of his time in power as the resident expert. He is not the kind to be a potted plant in the White House.
Which raises an important matter. Do we really want a plural presidency?

Now there is a certain historical lesson to be learned here and Professor Emeritus Willis goes into the Founding Fathers reason for a singular Executive in great detail...detail that the Junior Logician has been reminding me of as he studies the founding of the Union in his History class. These are lessons that we all need to remember going into each and every election.

The Rise of The Machine

The Clinton attack machine that is. Yesterday, on MidStream Radio, Ron, Jazz, Joe Gandleman and I talked about the Democrats and what has become a rather nasty race for the Presidential nomination. The nastiness has been especially prevalent from former President Bill Clinton who has pulled out all the stops when it comes to attacking his Hillary’s opponent. It has gotten so bad that even some of his most ardent supporters are not-so-quietly telling him to “cool it“. What I find to be amusing is that the Obama camp apparently did not expect this to happen.

Asking for donations of $50, she (Michelle Obama) wrote: “In the past week or two, another candidate’s spouse has been getting an awful lot of attention. . . . What we didn’t expect, at least not from our fellow Democrats, are the win-at-all-costs tactics we’ve seen recently. We didn’t expect misleading accusations that willfully distort Barack’s record.”

Ask anyone who has politically crossed swords with the Clinton’s and they will tell you that the “win-at-all-costs tactics” are what the Clinton’s do best. That is how they survived scandal after scandal.

Joe brought up a great point yesterday that will bear watching. All of those who are currently decrying the use of these tactics against Senator Obama need to ask themselves one question. Will you consider this kind of campaigning “OK” once it is directed toward the Republican candidate? If you answer yes, then you simply should not be surprised to hear “hypocrite” coming your way.

UPDATE AND BUMP: Jonathan Chait in the LA Times wonders if the "right is right on Clinton"...

The big turning point seems to be this week, when the Clintons slammed Obama for acknowledging that Ronald Reagan changed the country. Everyone knows Reagan changed the country. Bill and Hillary have said he changed the country. But they falsely claimed that Obama praised Reagan's ideas, saying he was a better president than Clinton -- something he didn't say and surely does not believe.
This might have been the most egregious case, but it wasn't the first. Before the New Hampshire primaries, Clinton supporters e-mailed pro-choice voters claiming that Obama was suspect on abortion rights because he had voted "present" instead of "no" on some votes. (In fact, the president of the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood said she had coordinated strategy with Obama and wanted him to vote "present.") Recently, there have been waves of robocalls in South Carolina repeatedly attacking "Barack Hussein Obama."

Of course Chait would never utter the words that we were right on Bill and Hillary. Most likely if he ever did he would be pilloried by his fellow lefties. However, he is starting to see what most of us on the right saw 15 years ago. That Bill and Hillary will slime anyone in order to gain power. Welcome to the club Jonathan!

UPDATE NUMBER 2! HT Capt Ed. The New York Times gets into the act!

Bill Clinton, in his over-the-top advocacy of his wife’s candidacy, has at
times sounded like a man who’s gone off his medication. And some of the Clinton
surrogates have been flat-out reprehensible.

Excuse me....I'll get back to you on this just as soon as I can stop laughing.

Why We Caucus

Well, since Dave and Ed have both put posts up today questioning why we caucus, I suppose that someone needs to come to the defense of the process. Now I can not speak for those that initiated the caucus system in Minnesota, so I will have to speak to why I am a huge fan of the caucus process.

I moved to Minnesota from a primary state. The rank and file voters were not welcome in the party machine - except to vote or to donate money. As a result, there was always a "Good Old Boys" network that ran the parties. Voters simply were not part of their process. Then I moved to Minnesota and wow what a difference. in 1994, I read a community notice in our local paper that invited everyone to come to caucus. Even though I had a barely 1 year old at home, I was curious enough that I hired a babysitter and I came to cacus. I still remember Richard (our precinct chair) - even though he and his wife moved away a couple of years ago. They welcomed me in and told me to ask questions if I didn't understand something. I asked a lot of questions that night but I came away hooked on the process.

I attended caucuses every two years after that, but it was not until 2000 that I actually "got involved" in the party. At the 2000 caucus I signed up to be a delegate to the Senate District and Congressional District conventions and attended both of them. In 2004, I was asked to be a part of our Senate District Executive Committee as Media Relations Chair (that was the start of the blogging monster!) and two years later I was elected Chairman of our BPOU.

Now that the history lesson is done, on to the remarks.

Ed made one comment over at Heading Right that I simply must refute.

Caucuses benefit party apparatchiks, not candidates and certainly not voters.

Based on my experiences here in Minnesota, he could not be further from the truth. Our caucuses have always bent over backwards to accomodate and include the voters - because we know that they are our base of support!

Ed also remarks on the confusion of Iowa and Nevada. I think Jim Moore of the Minnesota Independence Party hit the nail on the head.

Recently, the term "caucus" has become tainted with a perception of superiority, secrecy, and protection of "insiders" that some find intimidating and others find distasteful.

We definitely saw that on display in Nevada and Iowa when the Democrats caucused there. However, the Republicans had caucuses those nights as well and there were no problems. Nor are there problems like that here in Minnesota - for either party. Here in Minnesota we have secret balloting - no standing in a corner for all to see who you are supporting. Here in Minnesota we try not to let campaign operatives knowingly run a caucus as you saw in Nevada. In those cases, that is more of an indictment of the caucus organizers than it is the caucus process.

Dave remarks in his post.

The caucus system, whatever it's strengths may be, serves to intimidate first time voters. To say that it's rules and procedures are confusing to most people would be an understatement.

I can't argue with that - it can indeed be confusing for a first timer...especially if that first timer does not ask (or is not afforded the opportunity to ask) a lot of questions. The thing is, the MNGOP puts together a nifty little FAQ sheet that is available to all caucus goers - a "What to Expect Tonight" paper that caucus goers can read and use to help navigate the waters.

Dave also brings up another point that simply must be answered.

But the biggest flaw in the caucus system is the small window of time in which they are held. In a primary vote, most polls are open 12 hours, and there are state and federal laws requiring that employers give time off to vote. The caucus takes place over a 2-4 hour period, and you must be present and registered promptly at the starting time.

Starting with the last sentence first I have to say that in all my years of doing this I have yet to see any political meeting start promptly - it just does not happen. True you can not come in and register at 7:30, but I simply can not think of a single caucus that I have attended that started on time.

His other point has some validity. Caucuses are time consuming. It is not an event where you show up, fill in a couple of ovals and then go on with life. It is designed to be interactive - not a solo project. It is a place where the Joe and Jane Citizen can go and argue for the issues that are important to them. Whether it is on the battlefield or in a smoky back room with a bunch of cranky old people, the fight for democracy takes many forms.

Minnesota's caucus process is an opportunity for the average taxpaying citizen to have a say in how party politics is done! On it's purest level (which the Iowa and Nevada Democrat caucuses were not) it is where everyone truly gets to have their say. It is a chance for neighbors to get together and have a say in the direction of their city and state.

When Job Cuts are Good.

During the Michigan primaries, Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee started his attack on fellow hopeful Mitt Romney by saying that he (Huckabee) wanted to be the "president who looks like the guy you work with and not the guy who laid you off." Since then he has used that in stump speeches as tag line for his populism. Today Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday took that stump speech rhetoric a step further by asking Governor Romney the following.

WALLACE: Governor, we have less than two minutes left. You also talk about your experience in private business. You were an enormously successful businessman in the '90s as the head of Bain Capital, a private equity firm. Your critics point out that you took over a company called American Pad & Paper. That company ended up closing two plants and laying off 385 workers. Bain also bought a company called Dade International, which ended up laying off some 1,900 workers. You didn't save those jobs, Governor.
ROMNEY: No, there's no question that if you're in the business world and you're trying to save a business that's in trouble, that you're not going to be successful 100 percent of the time.
And I'm very proud of the fact that we were successful many, many times. We grew jobs quite dramatically in many settings. But oftentimes, when an enterprise is in real trouble, you have to try and cut back to save it.

Emphasis mine. Let's start with American Pad and Paper. AmPad was formed in 1888 and 100 years later found itself the subject of a buy out (Mead Corporation) due to financial woes. American Pad and Paper Holdings was formed in order to take AmPad back to private ownership. It went from laying people off in 1992 to growing to the point that now it employes over 4100 people! A large portion of those 4100 jobs would have never been created had it not been for Bain and American Pad and Paper Holdings buying AmPad from Mead.

Now on to Dade International aka Dade Behring. Dade Behring was drowning in debt and Bain Capital came in. As part of the bankruptcy filings 1900 people were laid off, but there were thousands of other jobs who were saved so that when Dade came out of bankruptcy, it was a strong enough company to keep the remaining jobs intact.

Here is an unrelated story. While Bain Capital was not involved, they certainly could have been. Back in 2000 a company named McLeodUSA was burning up the telecom industry. McLeod employed approximately 3000 people in 25 different states. McLeodUSA was formed by the former darling of MCI - Clark McLeod. McLeod, after 4 years of rapid growth based almost exclusively on borrowing, entered into an agreement with Forstmann Little Company - another private equity firm along the lines of Bain Capital. Forstmann Little replaced McLeod with aviation turn-around artist Chris Davis. Under Ms. Davis' tenur, McLeodUSA went from having offices in all 25 states and 3000 employees to only 3 offices and 1500 employees. I was one of the 1500 that was laid off. However, if the 22 offices had not closed, if 1500 of us had not been laid off, McLeod would have closed it's doors and all of us would have lost our jobs. Given the state of the telecom industry right now, having all 3000 of us on the job market would have had serious repurcussions within the industry. Today, McLeod has rebuilt to the point that their new owners are taking a good look at the possibility of growth again!

What I am trying to get at here is that as hard as it is for jobs to be lost, as rough as it is for the people laid off there is still some good that can come out of layoffs such as we saw with Ampad, Dade Behring AND McLeodUSA. There are times when, in order for a company to survive, some jobs must be lost. It hurts like heck, for those who are laid off and for those that remain, but in the long run it is often better for the economy, the employees and the company for those cuts to be made.

Taking Credit where None is Due

Remember this clip from General Petraus' and Ambassador Crocker's testimony last September?




Well today, Candidate Clinton had this to say on the success of the surge.

MR. RUSSERT: If General Petraeus says, "Senator, in September you called the surge the suspension of belief. It has worked, and you know it's worked"--let me finish--"you can see on the ground. I'm saying to you, Senator, or president-elect Clinton, don't destroy Iraq. It's working, the surge is working. Keep troops there just a few more months to get this reconciliation complete."
SEN. CLINTON: Tim, I'm going to go back to what the whole point of the surge was, and the testimony that we heard last fall. The point of the surge was to push the Iraqi government to make these tough choices. Now, if we put in 30,000 of our finest young men and women, who are going to go after the bad guys and quell violence in certain parts of Iraq, there's no doubt that can be done. The partnerships that have been created by the tribal sheiks in Anbar province and elsewhere gave us an extra advantage. But that doesn't in any way undermine the basic reality. The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.

Now in all fairness to Senator Clinton, the clip above shows that Mr. Russert's question was quite loaded. She did not say what he said she said. She said that "the reports (from Gen. Petraus and Amb. Crocker on the successes of the surge) that you have provided require the willing suspension of disbelief."

That said, her answer is the height of Clintonesque arrogance. For her to say that the reason that we are finally seeing political progress in Iraq is because the Iraqi's "follow everything I say." denigrates the sacrifices our our brave troops. Her grandstanding on this belittles the troops and their accomplishments and the Democratic Party.

Although, I may have to rethink my use of the term "arrogance" to describe her remarks. Her answer to Russert was so far beyond arrogance. I really don't know if there is an adjective that can adequately describe her majestic protestation of grandeur.

Monday Morning Quarterbacks

Editorial note - I was supposed to publish this last night but thanks to a computer meltdown in my DSL providers central office my best plans were thwarted. I love technology sometimes!

It must be Monday morning as all of the Monday morning quarterbacks are out. OK - so it's Monday afternoon, but bear with me here.....

Friday morning, after Ray Cox's loss in the SD25 Special Election, the second guessing began. First came Drew Emmer over at Wright County Republican (HT Mitch). Drew was upset because a supposed lack of urgency, on the part of the MNGOP to retain this seat and the appearance of "kingmaking" from the state party. Part of the reason for the appearance of "kingmaking" was the fact that there was such a short timeline for the special elections. As we discussed on the Final Word Saturday (more on that later) in an ideal situation,we would have had plenty of time for any and all comers to fundraise and assemble delegates, but there is a reason that this was called a "Special" election...it was a special circumstance. Drew's post was picked up by Mitch who added his own take on the situation. These two posts led to a stinging rebuke by the MOB's resident "party hack" (and I say that with tongue firmly planted in my cheek). As someone who spent the last month "in the trenches" in SD25, I have to admit that I too was stung by Drew's remarks as Michael was and to Drew's credit, he issued a clarification/apology.

The squabble turned over to the airwaves Saturday as the final three hours of the NARN radio program were almost exclusively dedicated to the SD25 special election. Where it really got fun was during "The Final Word" with Michael and King (King was out so Chris Tiedeman sat in for King). Drew and Mitch gamely stayed for the entire two hours - giving as good as they got (podcasts should be available soon at AM 1280 The Patriot). The air was cleared and everyone departed as friends - which is as it should be. These kinds of conversations MUST take place between general election cycles because going into the general election Republicans must coalesce behind the candidate in order to win the election.

Not to be outdone, our friends at MNPublius mistook clearing the air for a "circular firing squad". Since debate is apparently not allowed on the left, I can see why they made the mistake.

Which brings us to today. What do we need to do going forward? Mitch has the idea in his recap of the weekend and it is a sentiment that I must wholeheartedly second! Republicans of all stripes absolutely MUST get out to the caucuses on February 5!! The caucuses is where YOU can meet with your neighbors to make your voice heard. It is your opportunity to get involved with the party and help direct where it goes. You can not effect change if you are not involved. NOW IS THE TIME to get involved.

When it comes to elections, our choices are (as my dear friend Gary Gross AND the Logical Husband both reminded me) binary - there is no "one from column A and one from column B". You have to eventually work with the guy the the BPOU or the Congressional District give you - because the option is to let the opposition win - as they did in SD25 last week. Now is the time and the place, on Februray 5, is your precinct caucus location! If you don't know where to go, see the Precinct Finder located in our right sidebar. Don't sit the discussion out. We want to hear what you have to say and the only way for it is to get out to caucuses!

Activism 101

While I was visiting family over the holidays, I got an email from a reader - a sincere, lovely lady who was troubled about the state of the Minnesota GOP. Her concern was the GOP's "excited" support of Ray Cox for the SD25 Special Election specifically and of "squishy" (as I call them) Republicans in general. Her concern is not isolated to a few "malcontents" as some within the party may try to tell you - I hear that complaint from Republicans all over my Senate District as well, which is why I thought I would expand on my answer to her here.

One of the things that grass roots activists need to remember is that the BPOU is responsible for endorsing candidates. Those who live in Senate District 25 have as much say in who Senate District 1 puts up as Senate District 1 has in who SD 25 will put it! It's that simple. If the delegates to the SD25 BPOU Endorsing Convention feel that Ray Cox is best suited to their district, then that is who they are going to put up. They are the ones that live in the district and who know it best. Putting up a hard core Conservative may not work for their district. Again - they are the ones who have the final say in the matter.

Who makes up the BPOU Endorsing Convention you ask? The BPOU Endorsing Conventions are made up of residents of the district who had previously attended precinct caucuses and had been voted to represent their precincts at the BPOU level. So if you are unhappy with the candidates that your BPOU is putting up, you have the ability in your hands to start the change....get thee to your precinct caucus! Go to caucus and put your name in the hat to be a BPOU delegate! If you want input at the Congressional District level or the State Level you can put your name up for Congressional District Convention delegates (this year), State Convention delegates (this year) or even State Central delegates (next year) at the BPOU convention levels as well. You may even be recruited (as I was) to a spot on the BPOU Executive Committee if you are not careful. THOSE are the folks that make the BPOU decisions.

Once the Endorsing Convention has picked their candidate it is the job of the State Party to get that person elected. They don't care how solid the "R" is behind that person's name. All they care about is that the candidate is properly endorsed (or if there was a primary, then the primary winner) by the appropriate convention! That is the job of the state party - to win elections. Everything that they do is geared toward that one single goal.

Can you imagine what would happen if the State GOP tried to step in tell a Senate District or County just which candidate they should run in a race? I can tell you from experience that the BPOU leadership would not take that kind of "interference" lightly! That is why the State Party supports whatever the BPOU's give them to work with.

I hope this explains some of the dynamic of who gets what support. More importantly, I hope that this will get you to realize just how important February 5, 2008 will be for the state of the Minnesota GOP! If you don't like the direction it is going in right now, sitting home on Feb. 5 is not going to fix it....only your presense on caucus night will do that. I plan on being at my precinct caucus location - will you? You say you don't know where to go? That's no excuse. The Minnesota GOP has a wonderful precinct finder on their website. Simply plug in your full address or your zip +4 and you will know where to go. It's that easy. No pre-registration is necessary and new attendees are welcomed with open arms!

There really are no excuses. See you caucus night!

Benazir Bhutto

Much has been said about the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. She is called a patriot, a martyr and a cold conniving politician - depending on your view point. Rather than focus on her, I would like to focus on some comments that have been made by US politicians in light of her assassination. I already mentioned Governor Huckabee's "apologies" for the crime. However I did not get a chance (before now) about Congressman Paul's remarks on the event. Hot Air has the video and a few compliments for the Congressman's general point. What Congressman Paul has right is that we probably forced the democracy point with Musharraf, however, what he continues to miss is the point that we live in a world where what happens in Pakistan DOES affect us here in the US and what happens in Europe DOES affect the rest of the world! There are times when we have to deal with the "devil" (as we do now with China) in order to try to get them to play nice with everyone else. We simply can not leave Musharraf to deal with the chaos alone. The stakes (control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons) are too high.

America is NOT to blame for the death of Benazir Bhutto. No one forced her to go back to Pakistan - she went of her own accord. She complained about security lapses, but chose to ride outside her armored vehicle - making herself a willing target. The fact that both Governor Huckabee and Congressman Paul both seem to think that we are somehow to blame is a troubling thing for Governor Huckabee.

Well, Well, Well...

Things certainly were not slow last week when I was out of town! Between the Bhutto assisination (more on that later) and ALL of the news out of Iowa it is hard to know where to start. I guess this is as good a place as any...

If the daily Rasmussen Presidential preference poll is any indication, the bloom is indeed off of the Huckabee rose. In the last 5 days before the Iowa caucuses, Huckabee has gone from 20% and the lead in Iowa to 16% and a tie for second (with Mitt Romney). In first place (surprisingly) is Senator John McCain with 17% and followed by Rudy Giuliani (15%) and Fred Thompson (12%). Thompson's numbers have remained pretty static since this time last month while the others have been riding a roller coaster worthy of any amusement park. This tells me that the voters that are not pre-committed to any candidate are still looking for a candidate to represent them. This could bode well for Thompson.

While Rasmussen still shows a huge lead from Senator Clinton on the Democrats side, the Real Clear Politics poll averages show a much closer race - a slim 2% lead over Obama and Edwards. The RCP averages also show a different race on the Republican side with Romney leading by a slim .4 percent over Huckabee and McCain and Thompson slugging it out for third place.

What do I take from all of this.....first and foremost is to take the polling data with a very large grain of salt! As I have long said, polling data can and is manipulated on a daily basis. Wait to see what the voting says! Second is that the 2008 race to nomination is getting more and more interesting every day and THAT is going to get more people involved in the process and that is a very good thing indeed.

Huckadont

I was watching CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer" with my mother this evening. They were playing reactions of all of the Republican candidates to the news of Prime Minister Bhutto's assisination this morning. They got to a clip of Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee expressing our "sincere concern and apologies" to the people of Pakistan. My mother and I looked at each other in stunned silence for almost thirty seconds when we both blurted out simultaneously "what do we have to apologize for?" As much as I was flabberghasted at the statement, Paul over at Powerline seems to be less perplexed over Governor Huckabee's unfortunate remarks.

According to this report from CBS News, Mike Huckabee reacted to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto by expressing “our sincere concern and apologies for what has happened in Pakistan.” I'm hoping that Huckabee simply misspoke because otherwise he'll need to explain what the U.S. has to apologize for. Nothing comes to mind unless one is prone, in the fashion of Jimmy Carter, mindlessly to "blame America first." Huckabee also said that the U.S. needs to consider “what impact does [the assassination have] on whether or not there’s going to be martial law continuing in Pakistan.” But martial law was discontinued approximately two weeks ago.
UPDATE: The Huckabee campaign assures me that Huckabee definitely meant to say "sympathy" not "apologies."

As much as I admire the Powerline trio, I simply don't buy the excuse that easily. Governor Huckabee is supposed to be a minister and I would think that any minister would not easily confuse sympathy and apology.....it just doesn't ring right for someone who has been in the pulpit and elected office to be that sloppy.....

The Huckaboom is about to become a Huckabomb.....

The Ron Paul Phenomenon

You may have noticed that Presidential politics has been on my mind a lot this past week. With the Iowa caucuses three weeks away, is it any wonder? The subject of today's post I'm sure will be controversial....Congressman Ron Paul. I've written about Congressman Paul in the past on my own blog and the more I dig into his record, the more puzzled I am by his candidacy. While I feel that his isolationist views are dead wrong and dangerous, I like a some of his thoughts on limited government.

Today Logical Lady Kimberly Strassel takes a look at some of the lessons that the RNC needs to take from the Ron Paul campaign.

If there's been a phenomenon in this Republican presidential race, it's been the strength of a fiery doctor from Texas and his message of limited government. As the GOP front-runners address crowds of dispirited primary voters, Mr. Paul has been tearing across the country, leaving a trail of passionate devotees in his wake.
Paul rallies heave with voters waving placards and shouting "Liberty! Liberty!" Money is pouring in from tens of thousands of individual donors--so much cash that the 10-term congressman recently admitted he wasn't sure he could spend it all. A fund-raising event on Guy Fawkes Day (in tribute to Mr. Paul's rebel persona) netted his campaign $4 million, the biggest one-day haul of any GOP candidate, ever. He continues to inch up in the early primary polls, and even bests Fred Thompson in New Hampshire.
Mr. Paul isn't going to be president. He trails in national polls, in no small part because his lack of a proactive foreign policy makes him an unserious candidate in today's terror world. But his success still holds lessons for the leading Republican candidates, as well as those pundits falling for the argument that the future of the GOP rests in a "heroic conservatism" that embraces big government. Mr. Paul shows that the way to many Republican voters' hearts is still through a spirited belief in lower taxes and smaller government, with more state and individual rights.

Congressman Paul is not going to be President. Besides his foreign policy stands, his supporters have put off so many potential converts (such as myself) with their tactics of gaming online polls to inflate his support and their blatent disregard for the property rights of venues that hold political events (such as the Iowa Straw Poll which dictated where signage could be posted...something Congressman Paul's supporters disregarded). Because of these actions, many Republicans disregard the Paul campaign entirely and that is a pity because his call for smaller government is a core conservative principle.

On the stump, Mr. Paul whips up crowds with his libertarian talk of "less taxation, less regulation, a better economic system." While Mitt Romney explains his support of No Child Left Behind, Mr. Paul gets standing ovations by promising to eliminate the Department of Education. Rudy Giuliani toys with reducing marginal rates; Mr. Paul gets whoops with his dream to ax the income tax (and by extension the IRS). Mike Huckabee lectures on the need for more government-subsidized clean energy; Mr. Paul brings cheers with his motto that environmental problems are best solved with stronger property rights. His rhetoric is based on first principles--carefully connecting his policies to the goals of liberty and freedom--and it fires up the base.

First principles....hmmmm where have I heard THAT before??????

The men vying to lead the Republican Party might instead make a study of Mr. Paul. One shame of this race is that for all the enthusiasm the Texan has generated among voters, he hasn't managed to pressure the front-runners toward his positions. His more kooky views (say, his belief in a conspiracy to create a "North American Union") and his violent antiwar talk have allowed the other aspirants to dismiss him.
They shouldn't dismiss the passion he's tapped. If Mr. Paul has shown anything, it's that many conservative voters continue to doubt there's anything "heroic" or "compassionate" in a ballooning government that sucks up their dollars to aid a dysfunctional state. When Mr. Paul gracefully exits this race, his followers will be looking for an alternative to take up that cause. Any takers?

Emphasis mine. The Party had best wake up and take a page from Congressman Paul's campaign. Small government is a winner! Returning control to the people will get you votes. This is not rocket science....it's common sense - something that appears to be lacking in both parties right now.

Taking It On Faith

Logical Lady Peggy Noonan has a column out today that all conservatives need to read and contemplate.

Christian conservatives have been rising, most recently, for 30 years in national politics, since they helped elect Jimmy Carter. They care about the religious faith of their leaders, and their interest is legitimate. Faith is a shaping force. Lincoln got grilled on it. But there is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary.
But they are not, and cannot be. They are central. Things seem to be getting out of kilter, with the emphasis shifting too far....
I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment. Not a regular churchgoer, said he experienced God riding his horse at the ranch, divorced, relaxed about the faiths of his friends and aides, or about its absence. He was a believing Christian, but he spent his adulthood in relativist Hollywood, and had a father who belonged to what some saw, and even see, as the Catholic cult. I'm just not sure he'd be pure enough to make it in this party. I'm not sure he'd be considered good enough.

While the emphasis on religion does seem to come mostly from the press, there is a fair amount of it coming from within the conservative movement. As a "values voter" myself, I do take these issues seriously, but I also find myself in disagreement with other values voters on the priority of the values. As Ms. Noonan points out, many put the character values ahead of the ability to govern. I know some wonderful Godly people who would not be able to handle the stress of governing and I know many who have the temperment to govern wisely who are not the "best Christians" (like Ronald Reagan).

Just as we the people expect wisdom out of our elected officials, we the people need to show a little wisdom of our own! For those who (like me) prayer and meditation is an important part of your life, you need to pray and meditate on who will be the best overall to govern our nation...not who is the "best Christian", but who will be the best leader for ALL the people.

Making a three dimensional decision (who has the best character, who has experience and who can get the job done), as opposed to deciding strictly on faith, is the best thing that people of faith can do for their country.

Lazy Like A Fox

A lot of folks have been talking about Fred Thompson's campaign - and most of what they are saying is not good. The latest press meme is that the former Senator is "lazy". Others have tried to dispell that notion in the past by rattling off his numerous accomplishments. If you look at what he has done in his life, they are correct - there is no way you can consider him to be "lazy". Now I would offer my observations on the charge.

Most of the people that I have heard making the "lazy" charge, have either been inside the beltway pundits or people who live in the Northeastern US. These "Yankees" are get to the point kind of people. The inside the beltway pundits are driven by the 30 second sound byte. That is what they make a living on. The rest just feel that they don't have time to waste - they have places to go and people to see and they want the information they need now! They just don't have the time or the patience for "southern".

Before I get into the defination of "southern", a little background will help you understand where I am coming from. I am a Chicago native married to a New York boy. I don't do slow! It's not in my DNA. I do, however, understand "Southern". I went to college in Missouri, which is somewhat southern and some of my dearest friends are from "the South"...Georgia, Louisiana, the Carolinas etc and there is a distinct difference in mindset. When I talk to these people, It drives me crazy if I don't check my "Chicago attitude" at the door. That is because nothing that I say or do will get them to "get to the point" any faster. What I consider "getting to the point" my friends from the south consider "rude" and "un-neighborly". What I consider "slow" is deliberate and well thought out to them. That's just the way we were raised.

"Southern" is a different way of life. "Southern" is more laid back. They stop to appreciate the finer things in life - including a well thought out, reasoned, deliberate approach to the issues. "Southern" does not give a fast answer to a question that needs a nuanced answer. "Southern" will give you the answer to the problem and not just a promise to "act in an appropriate manner". "Southern" gets to the meat of an issue and comes up with workable solutions. They troubleshoot the problem which is why I "get" Southern....I like to troubleshoot problems and fix them which is why I got into a technical field of work. They are expert listeners (something we northerners need to work on) and will only offer advise if the advise will indeed work to solve your problem.

Fred Thompson is, first and foremost, a product of the South. He is deliberate in his actions and speech. He does not say anything that he has not put a lot of thought and consideration into. For a serious politician that is a plus. As an actor nothing he says or does has not been pre-scripted for maximum effect. Nothing he does is by chance. That deliberation is what people see as "laziness". Senator Thompson does not speak in 30 second sound bytes and that is what got him pegged as lazy.

There was another Southern boy that the GOP and it's northern supporters "didn't get". He'll never get elected, they said. He's too slow and lazy. That Southern boy, the former Governor of Arkansas, that the GOP took for granted ended up beating the northern insider that they chose to run for President TWICE! My fear is that former Senator Thompson's deliberation will be what keeps him from getting top billing in 2008. There are simply too many voters (in the GOP) out there who don't get "Southern" and therefore will not get Thompson. It's a shame. Senator Thompson deserves a good look as his policy positions are quite good and worthy of the GOP's support.

Trouble in Gotham

Six months ago, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and former Mayor Rudy Giuliani were the "inevitable" nominees for their respective parties. All of their supporters told us so! Now, however, that inevitability seems to be less likely. A series of gaffes by Senator Clinton have eroded her 20+% average lead from earlier this summer down to more mortal numbers - trailing Senator Obama in Iowa and barely leading in New Hampshire. Mayor Giuliani never enjoyed the type of lead Senator Clinton did, but has fallen all the same. More disappointing (for the Mayor's supporters) is the fact that he is now running a distant 3rd in Iowa and an even more distant second in New Hampshire.

Stories like this are not going to help Mayor Giuliani's campaign. Now a defender of the Mayor told me that the Daily News is a rather "liberal" rag (as opposed to the conservative NY Times?) but this story has also been run by ABC News (HT Captain Ed) and the Politico (among others) so I highly doubt that this is a "liberal hatchet job" as some might claim.

Now considering that I grew up in the Chicago of Mayor Richard J. Daley (the man who perfected modern party machine politics) and stories like this were normal and not all that remarkable. However, Mayor Daley never had a yen to run for President. If he had, those stories would have been an issue, just as they are an issue today! The Mayor and his campaign have not handled the questions well (as Captain Ed points out).

More importantly (in my mind) is the fact that the media has a very large stack of stories just like this, that they are just itching to publish should the Mayor become the Republican nominee. The Mayor's personal life will become part of the campaign. It will be used as a club with which the media will beat the "values voters" over the head in an effort to keep them discouraged and (hopefully) home next November.

The Republican Party must do better at chosing a nominee. We know that the whoever the nominee is will get that media anal probe, do we really need to give them fuel for the fire? I don't think it would be a wise thing to do at all.

UPDATE AND BUMP: Things are going from bad to worse for Senator Clinton. She was booed at a campaign appearance (by phone) for advocating that illegal immigrants earn a path to citizenship. She has also slipped further in Iowa polling which has lead her campaign to ratchet up the attacks on Senator Barak Obama. They have even started to (in a Pot meet Kettle moment) "question his character". This from the campaign that has taken tainted campaign donations from a convicted felon!

It's going to be an entertaining month.

"Only I Can Beat Them!"

The Star Tribune focused on this claim by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today.

Hillary Rodham Clinton maintained Sunday that she's the best candidate to win against Republicans, saying she has more experience battling the GOP than any other candidate in the Democratic field.
"I believe that I have a very good argument that I know more about beating Republicans than anybody else running. They've been after me for 15 years, and much to their dismay, I'm still standing,'' she said in answer to a woman's question about her electability. "I'm leading in all the polls, I'm beating them in state after state after state.''

Emphasis mine. Apparently Senator Clinton didn't look at the latest Zogby Poll.

All five of the leading Republican presidential candidates — including John McCain — would beat Democrat Hillary Clinton in a head-to-head match-up, according to a surprising new poll from Zogby International.
But Barack Obama outpolled all five GOP hopefuls — Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, and McCain.

OUCH - that is going to sting.

The "inevitablity" of Senator Clinton being the Democratic nominee seems to be less inevitable as we get closer to the Iowa Caucuses. Now is the time when things will get interesting...very interesting indeed.

The Truth Hurts

The "jackals" in the cartoonists corp are hitting Hillary after her "the boys are picking on me" gaffe.

However this one contains the hard truth about why Mrs. Clinton will most likely not move back into the White House.

Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir and even San Fran Nan, don't whine when the "boys pick on her". If Mrs. Clinton can't stand the primary heat, how is she going to handle the pressure cooker of the general election.

Please Hillary! buck up honey. Women are stronger than this and if you can't take the heat - then stand aside for a woman who can!

Down to the Crossroads

This post has been percolating in my head for the last few days as a result of a couple of dust-ups that have happened around the MOB lately. While some have poked fun at the participants, I kept thinking that there was more to be "learned" from the situation.

Both parties stand at a cross-roads. Fundraising is down, down to the point where the State DFL party is having a hard time making payroll and they are on the brink of losing a core constituency - the unions! (H/T MDE for those two stories). The MNGOP is facing it's own challenges. I touched on them back in May when I posted on the case for political "purists" - the part of the base that puts principle over party! I made the case then and I restate it now....the pricipled conservatives and the party over all Republicans need each other in order to win elections!

What both sides need to do now is to take stock of the state of the GOP today. We have, when you look at the stable of candidates running for President, representation of the "big tent" principle that we have been espousing lately. We have two candidates who have been elected (as Republicans) to office in very blue states, we have a former Senator who (as a lawyer) worked for a firm that represented a pro-choice organization, we have a couple of Representatives running on border enforcement, we have Southern governor who has some seriously "liberal" views on health care and we have a Libertarian Representative who wants to withdraw from the world and go back to an archaic monitary standard. All of these candidates do have their one or two "conservative" issues, but they also have their areas of concern (for principled conservatives).

The RNC/MNGOP are focused on one thing and one thing only...who can beat Hillary! There are many problems to that thought process.

1) You are going to alienate large portions of your base with this thought process. The conventional wisdom is that Mayor Giulliani is the "only" candidate that can beat Hillary. Current polling does confirm it. However, there are parts of the base (the pro-life, pro-traditional marriage) that have concerns about the Mayor's stands on their issues. Then there are many who think that national security is THE issue of concern (myself included) and the Mayor is their candidate of choice. The RNC/MNGOP need to figure out how to resolve that conflict.

2) Hillary! may not end up being the nominee. Current polling shows that Senator Obama is leading Senator Clinton in the all important Iowa caucuses. Large portions of the Democrat Party base is dis-satisfied with Senator Clinton and her patented "triangulation" and they are starting to look for someone who has the appearance of saying what he/she means and meaning what he/she says!

Rather than focus on defeating Hillary, the RNC/MNGOP needs to figure out how to bring all of the factions back into the tent and make them work together toward a common goal. They need to bring the best of all of the candidates into the discussion. They need to bring REAL fiscal reform in DC (Rep. Ron Paul) and they need to bring REAL border reform (Reps. Hunter and Tancredo) into the discussion. They need to tie those two issues into national security (Mayor Giulliani) and how all three work into federalism (former Sen. Thompson) and they need to make sure that the social issues (abortion, traditional marriage) are part of the conversation as well. They need to realize that the Republican base is not all about "God, Guns and Gays", that there are bigger issues out there that need to be addressed. They need to realize that ideas are what sell - not fear.

If the RNC and MNGOP can figure out how to unite the factions for something positive (as opposed to voting against Hillary or Al Franken or Barak Obama) they will be able to unite the rest of the country behind whoever our nominee ends up being. Let's let the factions debate the personalities while the parties look at the ideas that these personalities represent and figure out how to work them into the eventual over-arching campaign. If they can do that, we can win.

Vision Casting

I was on the phone with my friend Gary Gross the other day, when the conversation took us to one of my more “favorite” subjects…the Republican Party’s attempts to win elections by frightening us. I’ve written about this in the past. This “tactic” that the state party and several of our candidates have been using tell us all the reasons why their opponent is someone to be afraid of. It doesn’t provide what the electorate is looking for…a positive vision for the future…something to vote for, as opposed someone to vote against.

Regardless of party we have all gotten the calls…”you don’t want to vote for ______. He/she will be a rubber stamp vote for President Bush” and “you don’t want ____ as Governor…he’s too liberal!” What do these calls really tell us? They tell us that both parties are bankrupt of ideas and have nothing more to hang their hats on than petty partisanship. Neither side has a “vision” of where this country can or will go.

Think about some of the “great” politicians of the past. John F. Kennedy had a vision…that one day man would walk on the moon! Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw a day when paralytics could walk again and he founded the organization that came to be known as the March of Dimes. His cousin Theodore is the founder of the National Park system. Ronald Reagan was able to paint a vision of America as the “Shining City on a Hill” – a beacon of freedom that soon lead to the fall of the Iron Curtain! These men had one thing in common…they were vision casters! They had a forward vision of America and they articulated it in such a way that the American people were willing to follow! These great leaders didn’t demonize their opponent (that’s not to say they didn’t have surrogates do it for them), they laid out their vision to the country and the country followed.

Pessimism did not build this country! An attitude of “fear and loathing” does not win the hearts and minds of the American voter…the “can do” attitude of our Founding Fathers and the early English, Dutch, Spanish and Swedish settlers did! Tell us what you want to accomplish – or if you are already in office…tell us what you accomplished. A lot of our incumbents do have accomplishments – why are we not talking about them (Chairman Carey – I hope you are listening!) You have ideas…tell us about them. Tell us how you want to make this country (and Minnesota) a better place to live in. I guarantee that will resonate more with the public than “____ is a bitter, angry ex-comic”!

We need a vision caster today to lead the Republican Party out of the doldrums that it is in…someone who can remind the country that our greatest days are ahead of us, not behind us. We need someone who has a plan to take this country (and this state) in a forward direction.