A Free Exchange of Ideas

VA House of Delegates Gives Me a Headache

2012-02-03T08:28:00.000-05:00

The House wants to change the rules of the GOP Primary to allow write-ins, due to the fact that only two of the candidates were willing to put in the work required to get on the ballot: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/virginia-politics/post/house-passes-bills-to-allow-primary-write-ins-change-primary-date/2012/02/02/gIQAlgu4kQ_blog.html Whether this move has been orchestrated by the Gingrich campaign or not, I don't care; it remains preposterous. Not only does the legislature have no business interfering in the state GOP's nominating process, to do so at the last minute smacks of bias and impropriety. I'll be investigating whether my own delegate was involved, and if so, then I'll be voting for someone else in the next election.
I sent a letter to Governor McDonnell through his website: http://www.governor.virginia.gov/ I advise each of you who cares about the integrity of the process to do the same, regardless of who you support in the primary (or the general, for that matter).
Re: Emergency Change to GOP Primary
The House of Delegates seeks to change the rules at the last minute. I'm sure you know the story, the backstory, and all the gory details. Governor, I have been a supporter of yours from the beginning, and no one has as much respect for you as I do. I was a "Blogger for McDonnell" during your campaign, and I was pleased with your recent endorsement of Mitt Romney for President. I'm sure you want to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but I want you to veto this rule change if it should pass the House and Senate. It's abominable, it's inexcusable, and it's blatantly partisan. Moreover, the legislature has no business changing the state party's rules for it. As Governor of Virginia and RGA Chairman, it is your duty to prevent this measure from going into effect, no matter who you've endorsed. Thank you for your time, sir.
Sincerely,

Stephen Monteith

(This post originally appeared on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/notes/stephen-mark-monteith/va-house-of-delegates-gives-me-a-headache/10150633978946083 )

Apparently, it didn't matter ...

2012-02-01T08:26:00.001-05:00

... that Mitt Romney won both New Hampshire and Florida with larger totals and larger percentages than the 2008 winner; or that he finished second in South Carolina, a state where he was expected to bomb, with more votes than 2008's winner; or that his win in Florida was not just in total number of votes, but also among nearly every demographic; or that he's been endorsed by Tea Party groups and activists in multiple states, as well as numerous conservative pundits and public servants. Some people still are making the ludicrous claim that he lacks broad appeal. There's a fallacy in thinking just because someone doesn't break 50% in a contest, especially if it's not a two-person race, it's evidence he's an unpopular figure.

... that Rick Santorum has stayed in the primary. Despite Newt Gingrich's assertion that conservatives can't coalesce behind a "Not Romney" candidate if there are multiple alternatives, it didn't make a difference in either South Carolina (where Gingrich won) or in Florida (where both Gingrich's and Santorum's totals combined still fell a good 18,000 votes short of Romney's total). There's a fallacy in thinking someone's failure to capture a particular group of voters, such as conservatives, is due to the presence of another candidate who also appeals to that group of voters; sometimes, it's because they're just not popular enough.

... that Romney "went negative". Despite the fact that Gingrich had already gone negative in South Carolina and won as a result, quite a few people tried to "warn" Romney (through various media outlets) that he would lose Florida, or perhaps even the general election, if he went negative. And yet, Romney won with an overwhelming margin. Also, for months now, the knock against Romney was that he was perceived as not aggressive enough, that he wouldn't be able to stand up to Barack Obama. But as soon as Romney fights Gingrich's fire with his own fire, his critics call it negative. Even if there is a difference between aggressive and negative campaigning and even if Romney did cross that line, there's a fallacy in thinking this will somehow hurt him in the general election when it has served both him and Gingrich so well in the primaries.

... that Sarah Palin and Herman Cain both endorsed Gingrich. Romney, as I mentioned before, had his share of conservative endorsements as well, though none are quite as ... recognizable as Palin is. I, personally, agree that the process should continue. The more victories he has over the rest of the field, the less room for doubt there will be in the minds of those who would dismiss his eventual nomination as unearned. On the other hand, Palin's endorsement of Gingrich, however unofficial it may be, has done more harm to her than it has done good to him. Romney did just as good among self-described conservatives in Florida as Gingrich did, and he certainly did better among women, two constituencies among whom Sarah Palin's endorsement should have helped Gingrich; but it didn't. As Romney's loss in South Carolina demonstrated, there's a fallacy in thinking a well-known conservative female governor's endorsement will count for much among conservative female voters.

... that Gingrich won South Carolina. In the ten days between that primary and Florida's, Gingrich's numbers in the latter state received the winner's bounce and then dropped back to their previous level. As we've seen throughout this election season, every candidate has a floor of support, some lower than others. A phantom swell of support has been granted to each candidate in turn: Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. Ron Paul and Romney, perhaps by virtue of their previous primary runs, were immune to the phantom bounce, which seems to be the product of a group of voters who latched on to unfamiliar candidates for exactly the amount of time it took to get to know them and then abandoned them. Romney and Paul both rose in the polls as well, but they never fell because their rises weren't artificial. They both lost, technically, in Iowa and South Carolina, but they also improved on their previous runs (or at least didn't do any worse). Gingrich has now risen and fallen twice. I suspect his second rise, in South Carolina, came at Santorum's expense. I also suspect he won't have another. Since Romney's floor has always been higher than Gingrich's, "phantom voters" won't be enough in the future. There's a fallacy in thinking the nebulous popularity of one candidate will overcome the groundwork (and hard work) of another; especially when that other has already soundly outperformed the one in three out of four contests.

We've seen a lot of conventional wisdom countered in this race. The hyperinflated number of debates has been derided by nearly everyone, and yet it has helped even the score among the candidates, to an extent. Endorsements, both positive and negative, have proven less important than in previous years, perhaps because voters insist on making up their own minds moreso than before. And though the two frontrunners, Romney and Gingrich, have both been endowed by the Vocal Minority with unearned labels (Gingrich the Outsider and Romney the Liberal), the voters have largely ignored those narratives. But one thing hasn't changed: Organization matters. Iowa showed us that relying on either retail, Internet, or organization produced approximately equal results among the top three finishers. In later contests, the victory went to the master of all three. It would be a fallacy to assume the same advantage won't hold in the upcoming contests; especially the caucuses.

Who do you trust?

2012-01-27T04:43:00.001-05:00

Newt Gingrich has suggested that Mitt Romney is running a "fundamentally dishonest campaign". That's a pretty spicy accusation, especially when people's trust in their leaders is at such a low point. Gingrich prides himself on being a great speaker (no pun intended), so while "dishonest" may have been the intended operative word, his use of the word "fundamentally" is more interesting to me. A fundamental is a basic part, an essential component, an underlying foundation of a larger entity. In sports, the word "fundamentals" calls to mind the basic moves and strategies that support the overall gameplay. In politics, having dishonesty as one of your fundamentals would seem to be quite a deficit. Is it one of Romney's fundamentals? Is it not one of Gingrich's?

You can't separate your campaign from your personal life. As much as people say being a president isn't about your personal life but rather your policies, you cannot say that character doesn't matter. We have several candidates for the presidency, each claiming that another is being dishonest. We can't all meet these people individually, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell whether what we read about them online and see about them on TV is at all accurate. So how do we know who is "fundamentally" trustworthy and who is "fundamentally" dishonest?

Well, we could go by the word of those who have met these candidates personally. Endorsements, both positive and negative, have been pouring in for months now. Many would like to ignore endorsements, or at least not lend them much weight. On the other hand, endorsements do serve a purpose: They are the word of those who, for the most part, have met these candidates, worked with them, and observed them in action without the filter of either the new or old media. For the most part, Governor Romney has earned the lion's share of positive endorsements from Congressmen, Senators, state representatives and officials, judges, ambassadors, and even a fair number of prominent Tea Party activists. Nearly every Republican governor in the country who has made an endorsement has endorsed Romney, including the governors of South Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Idaho, Nebraska, and New Jersey. This is important because governors have a unique perspective on the job and responsibility of "chief executive", and they are virtually united in declaring Mitt Romney the best man for that particular job.

By contrast, Newt Gingrich has earned the negative endorsement of many Congressmen who served with him in public office. They have said he was too erratic and undisciplined to effectively lead as Speaker of the House, and that he would similarly be a disaster as President of the United States. They further warn that he is very likely to lose this election, and indeed would damage the chances of conservative candidates running down-ticket from him. Some have chosen to read these warnings, many from the same people who practically drove Gingrich from his Speakership over a decade ago, as the desperate acts of the "establishment" to keep Gingrich from threatening their "status". On the hand, we've seen no similar backlash from any of Romney's former associates, either in business, government, or while running the Olympics. No ethics or corruption charges and no attempts to oust him, despite the fact that the world of business is (arguably) far more corrupt and cutthroat than the United States Congress.

But, even if you choose to ignore all the positive endorsements Romney has received and all the negative endorsements Gingrich has received, it is still possible to gauge, reasonably, who is the more "fundamentally" dishonest candidate. Christians of all stripes, be they Mormon, Catholic, or Evangelical, should recognize the admonition found in the Sermon on the Mount: "Ye shall know them by their fruits ... A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." (Matthew 7:16, 18 KJV) What have the fruits of these men's lives been?

Mitt Romney has been accused of being a flip-flopper, someone who will change any position as long as it suits his ambitions. My problem with that accusation has always been "Well, why hasn't he left the LDS church, then?" As a Mormon myself, I can tell you that being a Latter-day Saint is not conducive to having a large ego (which, incidentally, may also explain why Romney isn't as "bombastic" as Gingrich on the campaign trail). Certainly, Romney has had great success in his life, as have many other Mormons whom we can probably all name; but wouldn't he have had a much easier time if he'd just cut the "anchor" that is Mormonism? He might have actually won Iowa four years ago and been president already.

Romney has been a man of constancy. Certainly his politics have trended more rightward (trended, not flipped) as his experience has deepened, but so did Ronald Reagan's; and so did Newt Gingrich's, for that matter. Romney has been a member of the same church his entire life, been married to the same woman his entire adult life, never once been accused by a former associate or subordinate, in either the public or private sector, of inappropriate behavior, and since his conversion to conservatism while Governor of Massachusetts has not ceased to help conservative candidates get elected to offices in every state and at every level of government.

Compare that to Newt Gingrich who has been divorced twice because of adultery, changed religions, been rejected by his own caucus after only two terms as Speaker (and is still rejected by them), and recently claimed, rather bizarrely, that his transgressions are a strength because it means he's more in touch with normal people. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't want a "normal" person as president; I want an exceptional one. While I'm in no position to cast any stones, I chose to place my trust in the good tree; because it has brought forth good fruit.

2012 Republican Nomination: Final Predictions (and Analysis)

2012-01-09T06:57:00.001-05:00

The voting has begun. The Iowa Caucuses were less than a week ago, the New Hampshire primary is this week, and there are three more major nominating events in the next month (as well as four more debates). It seems a little early to be making "final predictions", but I think most people get the sense there's not much left to predict. We know who the winner will be; all that's left is the spread. The 2012 Republican primary race has been, to different people, the most satisfying, the most frustrating, and the most disappointing primary season in history, and all because of one man: Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Who says he can't excite people?

I have some predictions about the next couple of months leading up to Super Tuesday on March 6th. First, Romney will win every single primary and caucus by virtue of the strength of his campaign organization, contributions, and general candidacy for the presidency. He won't run unopposed, of course, and he shouldn't. No candidate should win the nomination without proving that he or she has earned it. The second prediction deals with which of his opponents will drop out of the race and when. I suppose I could also predict which of them will ultimately endorse Romney (it will not be all of them) and who, if any of them, Romney would choose for his running mate. The first, I don't even want to think about, because it pains me to think of who would be so petty as to not stand behind Romney at a time when Republicans need to unite like never before. The second, I'll save for when Mitt reaches 1,150 delegates.

Three candidates won't drop out until after (Mitt has won) the South Carolina and Florida primaries: former Ambassador Jon Huntsman, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Texas Governor Rick Perry. Each fancies himself to be more qualified and more appealing than our man Mitt, and each knows they have a chance if they can beat him just once before Super Tuesday. SC, Florida, and the Nevada Caucuses are the biggest contests left, but Nevada is Romney's, as it was the last time. SC is a conservative stronghold, but it went for Senator John McCain, a moderate, in 2008, so anything is possible. Florida is a big prize, so it would be almost as important to the candidates (especially with its higher delegate count). These three candidates are hanging by the thinnest of threads, which is why they need Florida or SC as a lifeline. If they fail, though, then they'll all leave the race and support either Mitt or one of the other two candidates; or no one.

The other two, former Senator Rick Santorum and Congressman Ron Paul, will stick around even if they lose in Florida and SC, and even Nevada. Santorum won Iowa (in some people's eyes), and he has a shot at the top three in SC and even NH. That kind of placement will make him the darling of the Anyone But Romney crowd, which will not let him drop out until at least Super Tuesday. They'll support him with money and organization, as much of it as they can. Ron Paul, similarly, will hang on, even if his only propellant is the strength of his following. But the RP brigade and the ABR crowd have more motivation than just their devotion, real or imagined, to their candidates and to defeating Romney. As unrealistic as it sounds, they're striving to preserve the integrity of the primary process.

No one, I repeat, no one, other than a sitting president, has gone through the primary process as smoothly as Romney is set to go through in the coming weeks and months. If he is simply given the nomination by virtue of only having weak opponents, then everyone will question his strength as a candidate. Winning by default isn't the same as rising to the top. In 2008, Romney lost in a divided field; now, he has an opportunity to win in one, but only if that field is strong enough to actually challenge him. The GOP, gathered so famously by Ronald Reagan into a coalition of foreign policy, economic and social conservatives, has been fracturing into its component parts ever since. That has allowed for such diverse Republican presidents and nominees as George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and John McCain. Now, we have another struggle within the party; but unlike before, we have a chance to choose a candidate who appeals to each wing of the GOP. Romney has striven to prove that he is sufficiently conservative in each area; foreign policy, economic, and social.

For the most part, he's succeeded. His record of fiscal discipline hardly needs to be repeated, but I'll do it anyway. In brief, he turned a multi-billion-dollar deficit in Massachusetts into a billion-dollar surplus in four years, balanced the budget multiple times, cut spending, avoided raising taxes even once, and did it all with a hostile state legislature. As CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics, he similarly turned a scandal-ridden enterprise into an unqualified success. Both times, he refused to take more than a ceremonial salary. His business record requires much more scrutiny than I can provide here, but no one can deny that he knows how to make cuts; cuts which the federal government clearly needs if it's going to regain a sound financial footing.

His foreign policy credentials are a little dicier. You could make the argument there's not much there on which to run; however, that argument would need a little scrutiny, itself. He may not have served in the military or as an ambassador, but he has experience dealing with the rest of the world, both as a businessman and as CEO of the Olympics. Even his time as governor gave him exposure on the world stage. He knows several foreign heads of state personally, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. And he gave a major foreign policy speech in South Carolina last October that established him as head and shoulders above most of the field in preparing for the general election in this area. He'll need it to prove he's ready to be Commander-in-Chief.

As for social issues, voters need to decide for themselves whether or not Romney's conversion from personally pro-life and publicly pro-choice to fully pro-life is genuine, or whether or not his pledge to protect gay rights in 1994 was ever meant to include the right to marry; but a letter from several prominent conservative groups in Massachusetts affirm that he did fully support pro-life and pro-family causes as governor. Also, five former ambassadors to the Vatican have chosen to endorse Romney on the strength of his social conservatism, despite the fact that he is a Mormon and they had their choice of two prominent Catholic candidates. While he may not be as conservative in each area as some may like, and while he may be more conservative in each area than others may like, he certainly embodies "all three legs of the conservative stool", as Rush Limbaugh said (once upon a time).

Ron Paul's followers are fervent; the ABR's are angry; and the Establishment, as apparent to anyone paying attention, has been dithering for months now. Romney has his own following, one that is arguably stronger than anyone else's. Fully 25% of the GOP has resisted abandoning him in favor of the successive chain of "Flavor of the Month" candidates. Ron Paul's followers have similarly stood by his side, but their numbers are lower than Romney's followers' numbers; every other candidate's base is even smaller. We in Romney's base have sat patiently and waited for everyone else to come around to certain facts: One, that no one else has the appeal within the GOP that Romney does, as evidenced by the fact that everyone whose numbers have risen above his have also fallen. Two, no one else campaigns as well as Romney does, again, as evidenced by everyone's failure to rise above him and stay there. And three, he's not as hated by Republicans as the vocal minority makes it sound. His favorability ratings are currently at just under 70%, and he's leading in every single demographic except "very conservative"; and even among those voters, he's not doing bad at all. So while he may not be every Republicans' first choice for the presidency, that's certainly not evidence they'd refuse to vote for him if he gets the nomination.

All he needs now is to convincingly defeat a strong opponent or two along the way to the nomination to prove his victories aren't empty ones and that he's ready for the general election. It's unfortunate that certain conservatives have chosen themselves as the opponents whom he needs to defeat, both officially and unofficially, but at least no one will be able to say it was given to him (not that they won't say it, anyway).

Romney wins Iowa. Here's why it matters

2012-01-04T04:22:00.000-05:00

In 2008, a Republican candidate was leading in the polls in both the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary. But, after being soundly beaten in Iowa, his numbers dipped in NH, allowing another candidate to defeat him there. A month later, still fighting both opponents through Super Tuesday, he realized the path to the nomination, while not an impossible one, could provoke a sort of civil war within the Republican Party. Rather than be the man responsible for a weakened candidate going into the general election that year, he suspended his campaign and threw his full-throated support behind the eventual nominee. It was a fairly stunning act of humility, especially since it came with no discernible upside. Until now, that is.

Mitt Romney just won the Iowa Caucuses. His total is nearly identical to what it was in 2008 (30,021 votes then, 30,015 now). I don't think we can know how much of that is due to his run four years ago, though I have no doubt most of his detractors will claim this is evidence he has an unbreakable ceiling of support. On the other hand, given that he has barely campaigned in Iowa this year and only recently spent any money, compared to $10 million spent from his campaign last time and a nigh-constant presence then, it could be said that is an unbreakable floor, not a ceiling. And, let's not forget, it is still a win.

Of course, it was a narrow win. The second-place finisher in Iowa was former Senator Rick Santorum, who came in only eight votes shy of Romney's total. Much will be made of this, by both Santorum's campaign and media outlets across the country and beyond; but I think we all know better. As I said, Romney hardly campaigned in Iowa this time. Santorum, on the other hand, has done nothing but campaign in Iowa. You'd think he lived there these last six months, and indeed he did. He's the only candidate to visit each of Iowa's 99 precincts. He's held multiple events almost every day since the summer. He had the personal endorsement of Bob Vander Plaats, the influential head of the Family Leader group. While Romney built operations and campaign infrastructure in dozens of other states across the country, Santorum neglected every state but Iowa, which has cost him the opportunity to even compete in some later states.

And yet, despite that focus, it has only been in the last week, literally, that his numbers began to swell. While some will claim that his devotion to Iowa is what earned him a virtual tie with the national frontrunner, his success came only at the expense of the rest of the crowd. Rick Santorum is merely the last in a very long line of people who stood as the "Anti-Romney" in Iowa. The fact that he was the last, after everyone else, despite his grueling efforts in the state, says as much about how little those voters wanted him to win as it does about how little they wanted Romney to win.

And even if his arduous trek across Iowa is what brought him so very close to victory, it is not a feat he can recreate in any other state; certainly not in every other state. The old adage "work smarter, not harder" comes easily to mind in this situation. Santorum's momentum may net him another second-place finish in a later state; but if he couldn't defeat Romney in Iowa, then he'll never defeat him anywhere else.

So, the nomination is Romney's. That's one reason his victory tonight matters. There's another reason, though. History will be made in one week. For the first time in the modern era, a nonincumbent Republican will win both the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary. Romney has an overwhelming lead there over the entire field, so much so that most of the other candidates have already decided to skip NH. That doesn't make his impending victory there any less significant. Some winners in Iowa have failed to become the nominee, as have some winners in NH; but never has the Republican nominee been someone who hasn't won in at least one of those states. And now, we'll have a candidate win both.

Heck, we could even have a candidate win every primary and caucus this year, the first nonincumbent candidate of either party to win every nominating contest. People have been talking for over a year now about how the Tea Party and the Establishment wings of the Republican Party could split the GOP right down the middle, especially over who should be the nominee. Well, not only does Romney already have the backing of several prominent Tea Partiers like Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Christine O'Donnell of Delaware, but he also received the endorsement of the Independence Hall Tea Party PAC, which represents Tea Parties in Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. And, if Romney does manage to win every primary and caucus this year, how could anyone not say the GOP is unified behind one candidate? As in 2008, Romney is working to unite the GOP behind a candidate who can win. The only difference is, he gets to be that candidate this year.

Congratulations, Mitt Romney!

Grow Up: Endorsement Edition

2011-12-18T02:45:00.002-05:00

Mitt Romney's impressive list of endorsements has been growing steadily since before he even announced he was running for president. Notable Romney backers include Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, former Governor Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, and well-known conservative firebrand Ann Coulter. The list also includes approximately ten times as many current and former governors, senators, Congressmen, and state legislators as all the other candidates combined. The sheer number of endorsements he's received is especially telling when you consider that many of his Congressional endorsements come from former colleagues of his co-frontrunner, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

These endorsements, however, have all been shrugged off or explained away by people who can rationalize "the establishment" coalescing around "the establishment candidate". Not that I have ever accepted the label of "establishment candidate" applying to Romney (or not applying to Gingrich), but it's easy to dismiss endorsements from people whose names you've likely never heard, or publications (like mine) that you've probably never read more than a few times. In the case of endorsements from the likes of Christie, Pawlenty, and Coulter, there are myriad rationalizations to be made. "Christie's not really as conservative as we first thought." "Pawlenty just wants to be his vice president." "Ann's obviously lost her mind." And, of course, the label RINO (Republican In Name Only) gets thrown around quite liberally (pun intended?).

However, the trend of conservative politicians, pundits, publications, and polls towards the Romney camp just keeps climbing. It saw four major endorsements just this last week. The first came from Christine O'Donnell, former Senate candidate from Delaware. O'Donnell's run for the Senate epitomized the "Tea Party vs. Establishment" fight in 2010 in a way that almost no other election story that year did. She defeated a candidate handpicked by the Republican Party to run and who was seen as an easy path not only to victory but to returning control of the Senate to Republicans. Primary voters in Delaware, however, couldn't care less about the national agenda and chose the candidate they wanted. Conservatives all across the country rallied to O'Donnell's candidacy, flooding her campaign coffers with money and bringing her longshot bid to the attention of the whole nation.

So you can imagine, when she endorsed Mitt Romney this last week, it caused no small amount of shock on the part of Tea Partiers everywhere. Publications and pundits have been downplaying the importance of the endorsement, with some going so far as to express surprise that the Romney campaign would enthusiastically embrace and promote it. However, that strikes me as a bit disingenuous. O'Donnell had quite a brand about her, after all. No matter what level of respect she commanded from either her supporters or detractors, she was always seen as a "true conservative hero". For her to now endorse a man who is viewed by many as the very type of politician against whom she ran in 2010 is seen by some as a betrayal of that brand. However, as she points out in her endorsement, Romney was one of the first to call and congratulate her on winning the nomination in Delaware, and he immediately donated to her campaign. They are, perhaps, a bit of an odd couple, but they truly believe in each other. While O'Donnell may have lost some supporters after this, it only strengthens my own already high opinion of her.

Next came the Washington Examiner, seen by many as the definitive conservative alternative to the Washington Post (sorry, Washington Times), featuring writers such as Michael Barone, Philip Klein and Byron York. It is owned by the same parent company that owns the Weekly Standard, one of the more reliably conservative magazines in the U.S. Declaring Romney to be the GOP's best choice and "the only Republican who can beat Obama" predictably brought accusations from readers that they had "sold out to establishment elitists", declarations of disappointment, and vows to never read the Examiner again. I've noted before that people should beware of assuming the most "vocal" responses are indicative of general sentiment, so it's easy for me to imagine the Examiner's endorsement inspired more thoughtful reconsideration of Romney among conservatives than it did anger amongst those who now consider the Examiner to be "dead" to them. However, it's still disconcerting when a presumably long-term reader of a publication would abandon it over an endorsement like this. We're all too willing to live in echo chambers, apparently.

The third endorsement of note came from Nikki Haley, Governor of South Carolina. Conservatives rallied around her as the first woman governor of SC, the current youngest governor in America, and the second Indian-American to become a governor. Symbolically, at least, she's one of the most inspiring figures in the Republican Party, even if her single year in office has already hit some bumps in the road (what governor hasn't in his or her first year?). She's been staunchly and consistently pro-life and anti-tax throughout her time as a legislator in SC and as governor, and, until she endorsed Mitt Romney for president this week, was seen as firmly in the Tea Party. "Why, Nikki?" one outraged former supporter demanded. "Why would you compromise your principles?" I doubt this person ever honestly considered that Romney actually shares Haley's principles; if she had, then maybe she'd realize it doesn't take a compromise.

Attempts to marginalize Gov. Haley's endorsement have been almost as ridiculous as the attempts to smear her during her own primary battles were. Does anyone doubt the governor of South Carolina can influence who does well in South Carolina's primary next month? But the attempts to "explain" her endorsement have been even worse. Some say she's returning the favor, since Romney endorsed her campaign last year. Some speculate that she wants a spot on the ticket with him. Both are direct attacks on Haley's integrity. After all, not everyone whom Romney endorsed in 2010, 2009, or 2008 is behind him now, just like not everyone who is behind him now can expect a "job" in his White House. The more people accuse conservatives like Gov. Haley of playing "quid pro quo" after having previously supported them, the more they make themselves look like fools.

Finally, the Des Moines Register Editorial Board issued its endorsement on Saturday after interviewing every candidate participating in the Iowa Caucuses. This could be the most crucial endorsement Romney has received, given the influence the DMR has in Iowa. Listed from the beginning of the article are three elements Romney himself looks for in a leader and the board notes are absent, in whole or in part, from the other possible nominees: Sobriety, Wisdom, and Judgment. It noted the evolution of Romney over the years from an independent to a moderate Republican to a conservative. Some say it has been a "convenient" conversion for him, but DMR responds, "It should be possible for a politician to say, 'I was wrong, and I have changed my mind.'"

Another excellent, well-reasoned, considerate endorsement, right on the heels of several other endorsements from publications and individuals that examine Romney on his merits and not on how he makes them "feel". And, predictably, on the heels of the endorsement came the wailing and nashing of teeth by those who "feel" the most strongly about the endorsement. To everyone who calls himself or herself a conservative, it's been great seeing your passion and desire for purity on display these last few months and even years; but it's time to use your heads.

Romney is the best candidate; not the best to win the nomination or to beat President Obama in the general, but the best to actually be president. If we had nominated him four years ago, then we can be certain of three things: One, unemployment would be below five percent right now (I list it first because it's the most important). Two, there would be no ObamaCare, either in its current form or in RomneyCare-gone-national form, because Mitt was on record even back in 2007 as saying he wouldn't impose a mandate at a national level (and he was saying this at a time when conservatives still thought the individual mandate was a good idea). And three, there would have been no government takeover of Detroit (read his "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" article in the New York Times from Dec. of '08). An excellent record of job creation and balanced budgets throughout his professional adult life, no government takeover of healthcare, and no bailouts of private industry. What else could Tea Partiers ask for in their nominee? I've been to plenty of rallies in the years since they began holding them, and the answer is "nothing".

I'm not trying to short-circuit the primary process. I believe everyone should vote their conscience, and I certainly don't believe in dictating other people's choices for them. I do, however, believe in endorsements. When the Washington Examiner, Nikki Haley, Christine O'Donnell, Chris Christie, the Des Moines Register, Tim Pawlenty, Ann Coulter, and literally hundreds of other serious lawmakers, executives, pundits and publications start lining up behind Romney, representing a fair cross-section of both long-term supporters and recent converts to his candidacy, it's time to stop declaring anyone who stands with Mitt a RINO or a sellout. It's time to stop declaring that you've been "betrayed" and that your heroes are "going along to get along". It's time to face the possibility that you yourself may have been wrong this entire time. It's time, basically, to grow up.

McCain Redux?

2011-12-04T16:26:00.001-05:00

It's a myth that Senator John McCain lost in 2008 because conservatives didn't rally around him. As Michael Medved pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, McCain actually gained more conservative votes than George W. Bush did against John Kerry, and even more than Ronald Reagan did against Jimmy Carter. It was among independents that McCain lost.

Still, the myth perpetuates, mostly because people want to believe it. Conservatives, like myself, want conservatism to "win". We believe in the cause and in the principles, and when it comes to the presidency, we want the best, most conservative president we can get. The difference between myself and most conservatives is I believe Mitt Romney is that man and others believe he's the McCain of myth; to wit, a candidate too moderate to draw enough conservative votes to win. What they should worry about is nominating the McCain of reality, i.e. someone who will lose independent voters. As in 2008, it seems they are about to do just that.

There are quite a few similarities between this election and the last one. The volatility of the polls is one, of course. Some of the same players are around, particularly Romney and Ron Paul. And there's even a Republican lawmaker from the 80's and 90's with a history of compromising with Democrats, committing "heresy" on issues like immigration and education reform, having multiple wives, and narrowly avoiding being ejected from Congress for ethics violations. In 2008, it was John McCain; now, it's former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich has far more in common with McCain than Romney does. Neither of them has ever run a business or a state. Their accomplishments have all been legislative, and usually the result of compromising with Democrats on important issues. McCain compromised with Sen. Russ Feingold on campaign finance reform, with Sen. Joe Lieberman on cap-and-trade, and with Sen. Ted Kennedy on immigration reform. Not only has Gingrich sparked controversy by being (seemingly?) willing to compromise on each of those issues himself, but he also reached several compromises with President Bill Clinton that, while they averted a prolonged government shutdown and ultimately led to a balanced budget, would seem to be inconsistent with some of the compromises he's urged lawmakers today to not make. Granted, Romney made a few compromises while governor of Massachusetts, but that was with a veto-proof Democratic majority in the legislature. He still managed to govern more conservatively than even the Republican governors who came before him in office.

Both McCain and Gingrich have seen their political careers suffer near-misses on ethics charges. With McCain, it was the Keating Five scandal. Though he was never charged, he was criticized by his colleagues for using "poor judgment" in the affair. For Gingrich, it was 84 ethics scandals, most of which didn't receive a full hearing, but which did result in an official sanction and his own admittance that he had acted inappropriately. His Speakership was in jeopardy afterwards, and especially following his failed attempt to impeach President Clinton. Eventually, he resigned, the first Speaker to do so under such circumstances.

Both McCain and Gingrich were considered likely candidates for the nomination until their campaigns imploded over the summers before the primaries officially began. Both implosions were due to their "heresies" of which both had to publicly repent before voters would start leaning towards them again. For McCain, it was the above-mentioned immigration reform bill that ultimately failed. After it did, he "flip-flopped" and said that he "now knew" that any reform must begin with securing the border. For Gingrich, it was his oft-cited flip-flop on Congressman Paul Ryan's Medicare reform proposals that Gingrich once termed "rightwing social engineering", but now claims to support (kind of). They both had skeleton campaigns after the summer and have both had to claw their ways back to the top, with debates and strong numbers in New Hampshire being central to the health of their candidacies.

The other thing both needed to survive is for the electorate to reject Romney's candidacy. There was good reason to believe it would in '08, given that the idea was to elect someone who could win the Iraq War and Romney had no military record at all. This year, though, the hope is that Romney will not be seen as conservative enough for Tea Party voters. Bizarrely, given Gingrich's history, he's seen as less of a McCain than Romney is, despite the fact that Romney has never been sanctioned or even reprimanded by Congress, never been divorced, never been part of the establishment (despite all narratives to the contrary), and despite his exceedingly impressive executive experience.

One more thing Gingrich shares in common with McCain: he'll have a much harder time wooing the center than Romney would. In '08, the center could have gone either way; and it did. Virtually en masse, they liked Barack Obama better than McCain. They liked how he presented himself in the debates, his promises of "hope and change", how he handled the economic crisis, and, above all, how he promised to not be the second coming of George W. Bush. This year, independents know better, and they're looking for someone who can undo the mess Obama has made. Romney can do just that, and people know it. They know no such thing about Gingrich, and what they do know of him, they don't seem to like very much. Former Sen. John Danforth of Missouri wrote an excellent summation of why he and other center-right voters should elect Romney president. You'll not find that kind of moderate support for Gingrich any more; just like you didn't see it for John McCain.

Grow Up (Part Two)

2011-11-15T04:14:00.001-05:00

Almost two months later, it continues. Not like I really expected it to stop, but I'd hoped it wouldn't become quite this ridiculous.

The rise and fall of Rick Perry has been well-documented (and thoroughly reinforced) in the weeks since I first suggested conservatives needed to stop leaping onto the backs of whatever candidate they felt was both more conservative than Mitt Romney and a better campaigner and saying "please carry us all the way through 2012". Shortly after Perry crashed and burned (and repeated the steps over and over), it was time for "Hermentum". Herman Cain, despite having admitted in the very first Republican debate of this election cycle that he knew nothing about foreign policy (and oddly considered that a strength), skyrocketed to about forty percent in some national polls. But his fall, while not quite as spectacular as Perry's, was far more predictable. After a lackluster performance in last week's debate on foreign policy, Cain gave an interview in which his lack of chops were embarrassingly on display. This, even more than his botched handling of the sexual misconduct allegations, demonstrates that he just doesn't know what he's doing.

Next, mystifyingly, came Newt Gingrich. I knew, without a doubt in my mind, that Newt wouldn't be the next "anti-Romney". How did I "know" this? Because last spring (not during the last election cycle or during the last Democratic president, but last spring), the former Speaker of the House of Representatives was on record saying that he supported a "variation" on the individual mandate in Obamacare on the federal level. Romney has been castigated just for implementing it on a state level, even though Romney had said as far back as 2007 that he wouldn't take his Massachusetts plan national. Even before Newt sat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi, Romney had refused to adopt "cap-n-trade" policies in Massachusetts, despite some knee-jerk charges to the contrary. As with Perry, Romney is actually to the right of Gingrich on a number of issues that "grassroots conservatives" claim are important. It's clear who the better campaigner is, given that Romney has organizations, endorsements, and actual campaign cash in every early state and most later ones, while Gingrich, supposedly a genius, couldn't keep his own campaign from imploding over the summer. And social conservatives should certainly be able to compare Romney's 42-year marriage to Gingrich's three marriages and come away with no confusion about who's the more consistent candidate.

And yet, Gingrich is now either tied or passing Romney in recent national polls?

Say it with me, now: it's time to grow up, conservatives.

What could the problem with Romney possibly be? It's not his "flip-flopping". Gingrich, Perry, and even Cain have all flip-flopped on important issues since the start of this election season, and they've all taken their turn as the Romney alternative. It's not that Romney is less capable or qualified than the others; polls consistently show that voters believe he's both the most capable and the most qualified. It's certainly not that they just like the other candidates better. These are the same candidates who have always been there, just like Romney has always been there, and yet they've all seen their numbers go up and then right back down (and believe me, Gingrich's numbers will go right back down).

One entertaining theory is that voters don't like the fact that Romney doesn't attack the president enough. That's a pretty stupid theory, which is why I won't bother to link back to the full analysis. Romney's campaign, practically since day one, has been focused entirely on attacking the president and his policies, while everyone else has been attacking each other. Mitt's taken a few shots at opponents in debates, as well, and even in a campaign ad or two, but his overwhelming focus has been on the president. I'm going to post just a few of my favorite Romney campaign videos below, and you tell me if you think Romney's been taking it easy on President Obama (the rest can be found on Romney's campaign site):

Here's my theory. It's not that Romney won't or can't attack Obama, or that there's no real difference between them. I think enough people out there are smart enough to realize that Romney could actually defeat Obama and be a substantial improvement over him. Romney knows how to put people back to work; he did it in the Olympics, he did it in Massachusetts, and he did it with hundreds of companies across the country. If you've ever eaten at Domino's, slept on a Sealy Mattress, or shopped at Staples, then you have Romney to thank for that. And it's certainly not the fact that he's a Mormon; there are more anti-Mormons on the Left than there are on the Right.

No, the real issue is Mitt's "inevitability". Voters hate not having a choice. They hate not being allowed to make up their own minds. They hate it when someone else, anyone else, tries to take that choice, that decision, out of their hands. And so, unfairly or not, they hate Romney for being the "inevitable" candidate. "He's next in line". Yeah, so is Ron Paul; in fact, since Ron Paul is on his third run, he's actually more "next in line" than Mitt is. "He's the establishment candidate". What "establishment"? No one in the Republican leadership, either in Congress or at the RNC, has endorsed him; in fact, they've practically begged other candidates to run against him. "He's too slick". Excuse me? I thought the point was to nominate someone who can win. You want slick over rough. Or have Rick Perry's debate performances taught you nothing?

I could give a fig about why you say you won't vote for Romney. Everything you can say about him can be said about all the other candidates running. The only difference is Mitt Romney was out there getting conservatives elected to public office in every state and at every level of government for three whole years following the 2008 elections while the other candidates, especially Newt Gingrich, were busy focusing on their careers in either politics or television (or both). Romney has done more for conservatism in this country in the last few years than any other candidate or faux candidate, save possibly Sarah Palin only. It's time to recognize that fact. If Mitt Romney wins the nomination, then it won't be because he bought it or had it given to him; he will have earned it.

Think about ... France

2011-10-19T03:53:00.002-04:00

It was the moment in last night's GOP debate that many people thought was Texas Governor Rick Perry at his weirdest. The topic was Yucca Mountain in Nevada, both a local and a national issue. In the midst of a bloody battle (metaphorically speaking) between Perry, Mitt Romney, and occasionally Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, there was a rare detente between Perry and Romney (that isn't the "weird" part). It actually started when Romney had a detente moment with Ron Paul on the issue, which seemed to then lead directly into Perry agreeing with the both of them.

A little background, for those who don't know. The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was supposed to be an environmentally safe place to dump nuclear waste, as opposed to, say, the ocean, or a populated area. But there's been so much pushback from Nevadans and environmentalists that the whole project has pretty much been abandoned entirely. At the debate last night, the candidates were asked about their views on the controversy. Ron Paul, no stranger to controversy, sees it primarily as a states' rights issue. "What right," he asks, "does 49 states have ... to say 'we're gonna put our garbage in your state'?" Romney agreed, and even took it a bit further by proposing, in situations like these, that all states might make bids and offers to take the waste in return for suitable "compensation" from the companies that produce the waste; a market-driven solution to the problem, in other words.

Rick Perry was next, and he agreed with both Paul and Romney. But, whether he didn't feel he could just say "I agree with both of them" without offering something new, or the wheels in his head started turning just a little faster than his lips could follow, his answer was ... more than a little mystifying, to put it politely. He didn't have much time to speak, and he knew it, so it's possible the twists and turns in his answer were probably just efforts to inject as much information into the answer as possible. But then, the Shatneresque pauses ate up more time from his answer than his near-constant interruptions earlier in the evening took from some of Romney's answers.

Watching the answer again, though, you can tell, whatever else may be going on in his head, confusion isn't part of it. He knows what he's talking about. It's why, in the previous debate, he tried to pivot everything to energy. It's why his jobs bill focuses so much on the issue. Energy equals Texas. Perry's had certain advantages that have helped him create jobs over the last decade, what Romney once described as "four aces": conservative legislature, conservative courts, no income tax, and conservative labor laws. Throw in the wild card: "a lot of oil". While Perry hasn't been able to convince others that he could bring the four aces to the rest of the country, he has pointed out, correctly, that energy is a card that nearly the whole country has been dealt.

Perry just had a little trouble articulating it during the debate. I think it was one of those "unscripted moments". He went off-script a little bit, which usually involves him saying something that makes me nostalgic for George W. Bush. This time, though, I think it was due to his overenthusiasm for the topic. I've seen it before in presidential debates. In 2007, both Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin and Tom Tancredo of Colorado exhibited similar behavior, though perhaps a bit more practiced than Perry's. The difference? They knew they were single-issue candidates; Perry doesn't. I don't think his problem is a lack of polish or focus, but rather that he's been pulled off what his focus should be: energy. I think Rick Perry is a single-issue candidate.

I've heard it said that Perry could be a good Energy Secretary. Maybe that's true, but I tend to dismiss talk like that after watching the debates, for two reasons: one, it becomes increasingly evident through the debates that Romney will be the nominee; and two, the antipathy between Romney and Perry would make seeing them working together something to which you could probably sell tickets. This is a feud that rivals the Romney-Huckabee dust-up of '08. But watch the video below and see the anger and enmity clearly evident at the beginning of the clip just melt from Perry's face at thoughts of ... France. They might just be able (and willing) to put hard feelings aside to work together on this.

Maybe.

Conservatives, it's time to grow up

2011-09-25T00:22:00.000-04:00

I understand there's no need to make a final decision now regarding who to nominate as the Republican candidate for president. I understand that political fortunes in a presidential race can change faster and more unpredictably than the weather in hurricane season. And believe me, I know where Rudy Giuliani was in the polls this time four years ago.

But this is not the same race it was four years ago; and Mitt Romney is not Rudy Giuliani. Nor is he John McCain, but we'll get to that a little later.

Let's talk for a little bit about the last presidential campaign. Nobody knew what kind of dynamics would decide the final election. Everyone thought the biggest issue/factor would be the Iraq War; no one thought it would be the economy. Barack Obama and John McCain became the eventual nominees mostly on the strength of their respective stances on the war. Obama had "always" opposed it, and therefore was able to hammer Hillary Clinton on her vote authorizing it. McCain, whose campaign was on life support after his immigration reform compromise with Senator Ted Kennedy fell through, was able to work his way back to the top because of his strong support for the Surge in Iraq (also based on the strength of his military background versus Romney's lack of background). The defining issue (or so everyone thought) was the war, and the parties nominated the people who best turned that issue to their advantage during the campaign. Most other factors were (mostly) incidental.

Now, that may sound like an oversimplification, but it is, nevertheless, the basis on which the nominees were chosen by the electorate. McCain, Giuliani, Romney, and Mike Huckabee all tried to portray themselves as strongest on the issue of the War on Terror and national security. But while Giuliani was a national security hero, he was also clearly the most liberal of all the candidates (and the worst campaigner by far). So, for voters for whom the most authentic voice was most important but who didn't want to be caught voting with their heads instead of their hearts, McCain's lifetime of heroism was just enough cover to play tiebreaker between him and the man who once danced onstage in fishnets. As for Romney and Huckabee, they simply couldn't compete with a genuine war hero.

Did I just oversimplify things even further? Maybe. Let's look at the overriding issue in this election season, though: the economy. Mitt Romney is the obvious choice. It's so obvious, they can see his nomination coming on the other side of the galaxy. But conservatives' hearts just aren't in it. I've never accepted the label of "establishment candidate" for Romney, mostly because the establishment seems almost desperate to nominate someone else; anyone else. They knew they couldn't nominate any of the lower-tiered candidates, such as Rick "I Lost In My Own State" Santorum or Ron "The Real Reason Al Qaeda Attacked Us Is ..." Paul. They've known for years that the next election would be about the economy, and that, if Romney ran, he would be the blindingly obvious choice.

But Romney just isn't ... "exciting" enough. So they've hoped, and they've searched, and they've waited, and they've pleaded. "Mike Huckabee, you were governor for a long time, and you're popular with evangelicals, so why don't you run? Donald Trump, you're an uber-billionaire, and everyone knows your name, so why don't you run? Chris Christie, look at all the great work you've done, and with a Democratic legislature no less, so why don't you run? Mitch Daniels? Haley Barbour? Paul Ryan?" Any fiscal conservative they could find who also had a hint of populist appeal, they tried to get in the race. But none of them have; and none of them will. Why not?

Perhaps it's because they fear the fate of Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty certainly looked good in theory. He did a good job as governor, he'd been floated as a running mate for John McCain, and he didn't have any of that pesky "Romney" baggage. However, when he entered the field, he soon wilted when faced with the daunting task of running against not only the president, but members of his own party as well. Perhaps he'd have done better if he'd only had to face Barack Obama, but he first needed to squeek past Michele Bachmann and, of course, Mitt Romney. He couldn't do either. He made a very wise decision when he stopped campaigning and chose not to wait to endorse the man he knew could best lead the country during this time.

Of course, there's a worse fate than that of Pawlenty's: the fate of Rick Perry. Perry is another candidate who looked great on paper. He's the longest-serving governor in history, his state of Texas continues to create jobs while other states languish, and his conservatism has never been questioned. Well ... had never been questioned. You see, when you're the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, you soon find that you're not nearly as conservative as you thought you were. The only way to avoid being made to look like a fool is to never try to pretend that you were conservative in the first place.

That's a lesson Romney learned in the last election, and it's a lesson that Donald "I Sued To Have A Woman Thrown Out Of Her House So I Could Build A Limo Parking Garage" Trump would quickly learn in this one, were he to run. Chris "Plain Talking" Christie wouldn't need to learn it, of course, but his legions of fans certainly would, as would fans of Mitch Daniels, John Thune, Marco Rubio, and even Allen West. I've been on conservative forums all across the internet, and every one of these men have been called a RINO on at least one of them. How "conservative" you are considered depends entirely on how close you are to receiving the nomination; in fact, it is inversely proportional, I've observed.

And if they can't question your conservatism, then they question your credentials. Huckabee received more than his share of questions about raising taxes in Arkansas, and just how big a role Perry has played in job creation in Texas is certainly a legitimate issue. Some call it vetting, but the tone of the vast majority of these "questions" is far too ... personal, let's say; certainly too personal for people who've never met any of these candidates and only know what they find online (which may or may not even be accurate). There are three types of people who do this: the true believers (who will never be satisfied, because there is no perfect conservative with a perfect record of economic leadership), the devoted followers (who will never be satisfied until and unless their own prefered candidate is nominated), and the anyone-but-Romneyites (who will never be satisfied, because there is no one out there who is close enough to perfect to beat Romney, and even if there were, it's everlastingly too late for them to enter the race).

You see, just like with the Iraq War, there is more than one candidate who can address the issue of the economy. Tim Pawlenty probably could have done it, but he dropped out when it became clear that he couldn't win the nomination, and he's now thrown his support behind the man who can (sort of like Romney himself did in 2008). Now, there's Rick Perry (who, by the way, endorsed Giuliani in '08). Perry and Romney are frontrunners, not (just) because one of them is Romney and because the other is the Anti-Romney, but because they're both considered credible enough to campaign on the economy against the president's economic policies, philosophies, and (lack of) results. So, as in the case of McCain and Giuliani on the War on Terror, there must be a tiebreaker; and, as in that case, it will come down to who's the better campaigner and who's the more conservative candidate.

I don't think anyone questions that Romney's the better campaigner. Except for Ron Paul, Romney's the only one who's run a national campaign, and his learning curve is much sharper than other candidates. It would seem that Perry would be the more conservative candidate, but as the last three debates have demonstrated, things aren't so cut-and-dried. Perry signed a law granting in-state tuition to students who were in Texas illegally, and he has continued to champion it. Romney vetoed a similar law that came to him as Governor of Massachusetts. On this and other issues, Romney is actually the more conservative candidate. And, don't forget, Romney's spent the last two years helping conservative candidates get elected to positions in nearly all levels and branches of government across the country, including Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey. The only high-profile election in which Perry involved himself that anyone seems to remember (besides his own) was when he campaigned for Al Gore.

So, the conservative angle is, at best, a tie with advantage Perry, and the campaign angle is absolutely Romney's. That angle will be far more important in the general election for Republicans because, while the whole country is worried about the economy, conservatives are worried about removing Barack Obama from the White House. But, they still don't like Romney. They want another tiebreaker, someone who's "conservative" enough so they don't have to worry about nominating "another McCain".

To which I say: grow up.

Mitt Romney is not John McCain. I am giving you a "No Fail" guarantee if Romney is nominated to face Barack Obama in the general election. The last election wasn't about the Iraq War, like everyone thought it would be; it was about the economy. Neither Obama nor McCain was the right candidate for that debate, so it fell to the man who could campaign better. If we had known that the economy would be the center of the election, then Romney would have campaigned on it and won, because not even Mike Huckabee could touch him on that front (and McCain certainly couldn't have). And then, Romney would have won the general, because Obama would have had nothing with which to challenge Romney.

Well, this time around, we do know it'll be the economy, so let's pick the man who can do the best job; the man we should have picked the last time. He's not conservative enough? Who is? Not Rick Perry, apparently. He's not exciting enough? Get over it! This isn't about who's going to "pick a fight" or who's going to usher in a new era of conservatism; this is about 9% unemployment. This is about millions of Americans out of work and millions more just scraping by. This is about thousands of devastating taxes and regulations, and competing in an increasingly global economy. It's about jobs, and inflation, and trillion-dollar deficits, and bloated spending programs, and a broken system in our nation's capital. It's the economy, stupids! Now, get out there and nominate someone who can fix it!

The Ames Straw Poll - Predictions

2011-08-13T10:16:00.001-04:00

Well, if the most famous straw poll in Republican presidential politics accomplishes one thing, it may be to return me to blogging. If it accomplishes two things, it may significantly alter the current field of Republican candidates for president. This post will focus on two questions: who are the candidates, and how will the straw poll affect their candidacies?

Mitt Romney - The current frontrunner for the GOP nomination won the Ames Straw Poll in 2007, and that victory helped establish him as a credible alternative to the frontrunners for the 2008 nomination. Although he isn't officially participating this year and hasn't campaigned as much in Iowa as in other states this year, he still retains a significant following in the state. Some in the blogosphere scratch their heads at poll numbers indicating he's essentially tied with Michele Bachmann in the state, claiming that it must be mere name recognition. However, while Romney fans may not be as vocal about their support for the former Governor of Massachusetts as certain other candidates' fans, they are no less loyal.

It's my prediction that Romney will decisively beat admittedly low expectations. While he likely won't win, it's not outside the realm of possibility that he'll place in the top four. If he does, in spite of barely campaigning in the state this year, then not only would it force every candidate who places below him in the straw poll to reconsider their bids, but it would also deal a blow to the "weak frontrunner" narrative that is following his campaign.

Michele Bachmann - The Congresswoman from Minnesota is the prohibitive favorite to win the straw poll, and it is my prediction she will do so. She is, essentially, only challenged by Romney in the state, though that may change if certain other potential candidates enter the race (but we'll get to them later). What will a win in the poll do for her campaign? Well, at this point, it will only meet expectations. She would need to win by a significant margin, say more than ten percent over the second place finisher, to cause even mild surprise among pundits. Not winning the poll, of course, even if she finished second, would be a blow to her effort to distinguish herself as a credible candidate, not only in terms of rhetoric, but organization, as well. After all, that's what this straw poll truly tests about the candidates.

Tim Pawlenty - Organization is, perhaps, all the former Governor of Minnesota has going for him, in Iowa or anywhere else. Though that organization may help him in the straw poll, it cannot make up for the enthusiasm gap between him and several other candidates. His campaign has tried to lower expectations, but at this point, it's hard to say what a realistic expectation would be. I probably wouldn't predict that he'd even be in the top three if it weren't for the fact that most of his opponents have even less going for them than he has. While his campaign would desperately try to spin even a third place finish as a positive development, and while their hopes would no doubt hinge on lower place finishers dropping out after the poll, it wouldn't change the fact that he's just not that popular.

My prediction is he'll take third place (by a very small margin), he'll spin the results as best he can, and he'll hope against hope that he can think of something, anything, to justify staying in the race at least until the Iowa Caucuses next year, when he will again try to lower expectations.

Ron Paul - The political fortunes of the septuagenarian Congressman from Texas have increased over the last few years, but only in a relative sense. His ardent and vocal supporters ensure that he wins virtually every straw poll and online poll in which he is a candidate, but they may not be quite enough to propel him to victory in Iowa. Certainly, he'll do well in the straw poll, especially with the organization he's built up, but it's my prediction he won't rise above second place. It won't really matter how his campaign or his supporters choose to spin the results, as the most interesting and important part of the Iowa campaign will be how he does in the Caucuses. But I'll refrain from making that prediction, for now.

Herman Cain - He won't win. He won't even place. Of the nine declared candidates, he may, may make it to fifth place on the strength of his ideas and his business credentials, which are so desperately needed in the White House right now. However, he's not ready for prime time, as they say, and people can tell that. He won't drop out, though. Even if he loses to a write-in candidate, he's in it for as long as he can afford to be. Herman Cain's is a candidacy of ideas, and the main idea is that we need someone who is not a career politician in the race. So far, he's the only person who undisputably fits that description. I don't know how long he'll last, but he'll stay in the race after today, no matter what the outcome.

Newt Gingrich - All the former Speaker of the House of Representatives has, at this point, is ideas; and that's likely all he'll have after today, as well. People can talk all they want about how John McCain lost in Iowa and then went on to win the nomination, but Gingrich is not McCain. For one thing, Gingrich is actually competing in Iowa. For another, his staff didn't resign because of money problems; they resigned because of him. As with Cain, placing fifth in the polls may give him some cover, especially since it would mean beating extremely low expectations. However, it is my prediction that he won't even do that well, considering he doesn't have enough money to actively participate. That will also give him some cover to stay in the race (for a little longer, at least), but he'd have to do better than at least a few candidates for anyone to take him seriously after today.

Rick Santorum - The former Senator from Pennsylvania has spent an exhaustive amount of time in Iowa lately, as it is pretty much his only hope for doing well in this election. Expectations are about as low for him as they are for Gingrich and Cain; it will essentially be a three-way tie for fifth between them among the low-tier candidates. Unlike Gingrich and Cain, though, Santorum may be realistic enough to leave the race if he places too low. He has ideas, principles, and just as much to say as anyone else; but you can't run for president on ideas alone, and he'd have a better platform for those ideas at his old job on Fox News than as a struggling also-ran.

Jon Huntsman - Officially not competing in either the straw poll or Iowa itself gives him perhaps the lowest expectations of all the declared candidates on the ballot. The former Governor of Utah has no real base, organization, or strategy for Iowa, except possibly to not even try to beat his ground-level expectations. Like Romney, he'll be campaigning in New Hampshire while all other candidates work to win, or at least not lose, in Ames.

Thaddeus McCotter - Even most people who have been following the race may struggle to remember the Congressman from Michigan who entered the race just in time to get a spot on the straw poll ballot. That places him just above the other "last-tier" candidates (Fred Karger, Buddy Roemer, and Gary Johnson) who couldn't even make it onto the ballot in Ames. Because his name recognition is so low and he began his campaign so late, McCotter is the only candidate besides Huntsman who can "survive" a last-place finish among those whose names are actually on the ballot. But he won't survive for long if he can't at least find his way into a televised debate.

Sarah Palin - Ah, one can never write an article about the forthcoming Republican nomination without at least mentioning the 2008 vice presidential candidate, who has been spending a certain amount of time in Iowa lately. Though she won't "officially" make a decision for another month or so, she can't go anywhere in any state without drawing media attention, whether deliberately or inadvertantly. She's not officially on the ballot in Ames, but there is room to write in a candidate, and her following is certainly devoted, whether she runs for president or not. Look for her to do better than at least half the field today.

Rick Perry - The Governor of Texas is another potential write-in candidate, and he is announcing his candidacy for the presidency today. While many GOP operatives in Iowa may not like the idea of him "stealing the limelight" from the straw poll with his announcement, there are no doubt plenty of voters in Iowa who would love have Governor Perry as an official candidate on the ballot and will be happy to write him in. He'll beat some, or maybe all, of the lower-tiered candidates, and that may intimidate one or two of them into leaving the race. His campaign will spin any outcome as a positive for him, of course.

My prediction, though, is that many pundits will watch how he does against Romney in the poll. Neither has spent much time in Iowa, and both are considered national frontrunners. Indeed, as much as Michele Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty seem to be vying for second place in the overall nomination, the fight for first is generally considered to be between Romney and Perry. If Perry places behind Romney in the poll today, then "no one" will take it as a sign of strength or weakness on either candidates' part; but if he places ahead of Romney, then keep your eyes open for a host of pundits (and Perry staffers) to portray it as evidence that Perry is definitely the stronger of the two.

Results - I predict the order of winners to be:

Michele Bachmann
Ron Paul
Tim Pawlenty
Mitt Romney
Rick Perry
Sarah Palin
Herman Cain
Rick Santorum
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Thaddeus McCotter

A man is dead

2011-05-02T09:35:00.001-04:00

Osama bin Laden, the man most directly responsible for thousands of deaths on September 11, 2001 and many before and since, is now himself dead. Killed by U.S. Navy SEALs in an operation that was months in planning, that was so secret that not even our allies who normally would have been informed ahead of time knew about it until the rest of the world knew, his death will be remembered alongside Saddam Hussein's and Adolf Hitler's (whose death, coincidentally, was announced 66 years to the day earlier). Leaders and citizens of the world have expressed all sorts of reactions, from relief, gratitude, and jubilation to fear of reprisals against the men and women involved in the operation. We pray, of course, for their safety and that of their families and loved ones in the aftermath.

Should we celebrate, though? That a murderer and a terrorist can no longer plan the deaths of others, yes, we should celebrate. But let us be sure that is what we celebrate. Another man has died; another human being, another living person, another child of God has been killed. That is not something we should celebrate. Christians know this; we know that the law of the gospel is love, not hate. I'm sure every religion in the world has a similar principle. Even atheists must shake their heads a bit at the thought that any death can bring joy or glee.

I wrote an article on the nine-year anniversary of 9/11. In it, I expressed my desire that, in the midst of all the fighting we do to ensure that such a tragedy never happens again, we not lose sight of what our true motivation should be:

I had always known that growing up in the church had given me a different perspective on life, and it certainly has in this case. The scriptures remind us, in many different ways, that vengeance is God's prerogative, and that ours is forgiveness. We're told repeatedly that the law of God is love, for our enemies as well as our neighbors. In the case of the nation of Islam, they are sometimes the same thing. I've said before and still believe that the authors of terror and murder deserve whatever punishment they have coming to them; but that doesn't mean we should hate them. When a group or nation declares war on us or our way of life, it is our responsibility to defend ourselves, and even those who cannot defend themselves; but we should never do it with hate in our hearts. We were enemies with Adolf Hitler, with Mussolini, and with Hirohito, but when World War II ended, we helped Germany, Italy, and Japan rebuild, and now we're strong allies with each nation. We were enemies with Saddam Hussein, but now we have what could be a strong ally in Iraq.

Did Islam itself attack us? Even if it did, we should not hate them, anymore than we should hate each other for how we each choose to respond to the attack.

I wrote a piece last year about the Civil War and my governor's decision to issue a proclamation commemorating the sacrifices of the soldiers who fought for the South. Someone commented, "If you are going to shed a tear for soldiers that fought for something they believe in then please note the next Taliban, Nazi, or other terrorist you would mourn." I responded, "there's a difference between a Nazi and a member of Germany's armed forces circa 1940. Do you doubt that any of the troops in Hitler's army were press-ganged into service? As for al Qaeda and the Taliban, the same principle applies. The authors of terror and murder deserve whatever punishment we can give them; but when you take a child and brainwash him from infancy to hate America, who's to blame for when he grows up and wants to destroy us?"

While I don't mourn the death of Osama bin Laden, I don't celebrate it, either. We're in a world that has too much violence, too much bloodshed, too much death and devastation already. That it should even be necessary to kill someone to prevent him from killing others is a tragedy, and I will not celebrate tragedy. The War on Terror is not over, as some would like it to be; there are still terrorists and murderers out there, and we must still be vigilant and protective against them. I breathe a sigh of relief that the man behind 9/11 is in God's hands now, to punish as He sees fit; but I do not hate him, nor his companions, nor his family. You should not, either.

Reading List

2010-11-27T22:08:00.000-05:00

As I mentioned in the last post, "Roosevelt's Purge" is on a list of books I'm reading to prepare myself for completing my Project. This reading list will be comprised of books that deal with the evolution of political parties in American history, and probably in other countries, as well. It will include biographies and memoirs of past and current presidents, as well as other prominent politicians and statesmen in our past and present; studies on the history of political parties themselves; The Federalist Papers; The Anti-federalist Papers; A People's History of the United States; A Patriot's History of the United States; and others.

When it comes to this reading list, I'm interested only in learning about how the parties, and the two-party system in particular, came to be, and how to lessen their influence in national politics. I was impressed when I read an article the other day (I can't remember where, at this point) that pointed out the Tea Party has grown to be as popular as either of the two major "official" parties in America. That's hardly relevant to what I'm trying to achieve, though. While the Tea Party has taken great strides in realigning the Republican Party, whether they intended to or not, it still doesn't change the fact that we have a political duopoly in this country. The Project is to change the system so that candidates across, from the lowliest local officer to the President of the United States, can run independent of any political party and still have an honest chance to become elected.

The reading list isn't to help me better understand any party's ideology, or even which party is "preferable" to the others; it's to help me better understand how the current system came to be so that I can suggest an actual alternative to the system. If you have any suggestions on books or articles that could help, then please suggest them in the comment section below.

That's how FDR did it

2010-11-27T21:46:00.000-05:00

I've been compiling a reading list of books that address the evolution of political parties in American history for the Project. My most recent find is a book by Susan Dunn called "Roosevelt's Purge", about Franklin Delano Roosevelt's efforts to influence Democratic primary elections so he would have more allies (read: liberals) in Congress, particularly the Senate. I've only read two chapters so far, and I've already seen parallels between President Roosevelt and ... the Tea Party.

First, let me say that I think Ms. Dunn may have discovered the first ever recorded negative comparison of an American politician to Adolf Hitler. After losing a vote that was particularly important to him, and the support of several conservative Democratic senators, FDR announced that he would, as leader of the Democratic Party, be directly taking part in Democratic primaries and nominating events (though he asserted his involvement had nothing to do with revenge or retaliation). He faced an immediate backlash from the press, who labeled his efforts an ideological "purge" of the party. The Chicago Tribune went so far as to write that this would leave the party with nothing but "Hitler yes-men and Stalin Communists". (It should be noted that this was before the Holocaust and World War II. Still, it's quite a reaction to a theretofore popular president from the normally admiring press.)

Ms. Dunn writes of the former president in glowing terms, characterizing his efforts as a way to appeal directly to the voters, whom he believed supported his agenda, to elect representatives who would also support it. Still, it's clear there was more than a desire to push an agenda, however well-meaning the agenda itself may have been. She even writes about one of the president's allies who suggested the aforementioned vote should be used as a "litmus test" of loyalty when deciding whom he should support in the primaries. Terms like litmus test, party loyalty, and ideological purity are used by the media today as they were used back in FDR's day: as a negative color of the actions of a leader or group inside a political party.

Whereas in the late '30's, they were applied by the press to President Roosevelt, they are applied today to the Tea Party; and it's not inaccurate. Both sought/seek to create a clear choice for voters, to force them to look beyond labels such as "Democrat" and "Republican", and examine the ideology of the candidates themselves. Though the motives of both FDR and the Tea Party can be questioned, it cannot be denied they both have the right idea. Terms like "Blue Dog Democrat" and "RINO (Republican In Name Only)" didn't exist in Roosevelt's day, but he'd have certainly recognized the meaning behind the terms, and would probably have encouraged their use.

The more books I read on the history of politics in America, the more I'm impressed by how much it resembles our current situation. Every presidential biography I've read so far gives examples (sometimes blindingly obvious ones) of party divisions, nomination fights, and the emergences of groups like the Tea Party, even if they had no official name. I was never a very attentive student of history in school, and had a vague impression that the old saying didn't hold true; that we are not, in fact, repeating history over and over again.

On the other hand, if the champion of liberalism in the first half of the 20th century can be compared to an insurgent force for conservatism in the early 21st, then maybe history is repeating itself.

Happy Thanksgiving - May We All Be Grateful At All Times

2010-11-25T00:27:00.003-05:00

Help support a Free Exchange of Ideas

2010-11-05T01:21:00.000-04:00

I hope you've enjoyed reading my posts and found them to be insightful and informative, as well as entertaining. While I'm working on the Project, I'd appreciate any support you can give me. Please visit my online store at Zazzle and purchase anything you find interesting. The gear may seem to be election-themed, but the sentiments are important year-round. Thank you in advance for all your support.

Create a personalized gift at Zazzle.

Goodbye (for now)

2010-11-04T16:39:00.000-04:00

Well, the 2010 elections are over, and the speculation has already begun on a host of issues. Will the Republicans legislate responsibly, or "drive the car back into the ditch"? Will President Obama tack to the center, as President Clinton did after the '94 elections? Will the Tea Party's influence increase or decrease in the wake of mixed electoral results? And how will all of this affect the prospects of those who may or may not run for Congress and the presidency in 2012?

Frankly, I won't be talking about any of that. I had my favorites Tuesday night, as did everyone, and I have my hopes (and fears) for the future; but as much as this blog has been about freely discussing ideas and issues, someone else will have to take care of that for the next year or so. My time will be spent on two things: one, my new website Fourth-day Universe, and two, my non-fiction book project on changing the nominating processes currently used in America.

Now more than ever, I think, we should be aware of the problems inherent in our current nominating systems. If the most recent elections have shown us anything, then it's the pitfalls associated with the primary system. Sitting senators, such as Bob Bennet in Utah and Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, who have demonstrated they are still popular with large portions of their constituents, were excluded from the official ballots in their states because of the current systems. Official candidates like Alvin Greene in South Carolina and Dan Maes in Colorado proved to be damaging to their respective parties' prospects of winning elections, forcing third-party candidates to join the race and offer credible alternatives to the voters. And candidates like Christine O'Donnell, who is a personal favorite of mine for many reasons, received virtually no support from their own parties because of divisive primary battles.

It's time to take the future of our elected leadership out of the hands of political parties, especially the national ones. The current nominating systems do not sufficiently provide for all American voters a wide enough range of candidates. Voter apathy is fueled mainly by the perception that elections are merely opportunities to vote for the "lesser of evils". We need a better system, and we need it as soon as possible. The next election, after all, is for the presidency.

This blog won't be entirely inactive. I'll still offer my view on the most major events, such as the State of the Union Address and major legislative, executive, and judicial actions; and, of course, I'll provide updates on my project. In the meantime, keep the free exchange of ideas open.

No endorsement this year.

2010-10-26T23:21:00.000-04:00

In Virginia's 2nd District (my home district) Democratic Congressman Glenn Nye and Republican Scott Rigell are within one point of each other with only one week left before the polls close. Unfortunately, for the independent challenger Kenny Golden, he's far in third place with only 5 points. Clearly, everyone needs all the help they can get in these last few days of the 2010 campaign. They can count me out, though.

Oh, I'll still vote. I wouldn't sit out an election for anything. Too many people around the world are denied the privilege of electing their own leaders for me to ever take my right for granted. However, an endorsement this year will not be forthcoming from Free Exchange.

I've endorsed candidates before, on both sides. In last year's gubernatorial race, I endorsed Bob McDonnell who eventually went on to win the election. I also endorsed his eventual opponent, Creigh Deeds, in the Democratic primary, just so I'd have the best two candidates in the general election. As long as primaries and caucuses are in place, I believe in using them to ensure we have the best roster of candidates available to us.

At this point, though, it's hard to get excited enough about any of the candidates to say "I'm standing behind him 100%." They each have their high and low marks, and they all have their good and bad ideas. I don't want to get into a list of them, partly because I've written about them before, and partly because I don't feel this is the best time to say "I'm supporting him, and this is why".

A lot of endorsements are "rolled out" in the last week before the election. It's probably because most newspapers, candidates, pundits, and other politicos don't want to appear too partisan too early on. Maybe they want to wait until they feel confident backing "the winner". Or maybe they feel that most people don't actually start paying attention until the last week or so, which makes then the best time to say "this is who you should vote for and why". That all may be true; but if it is, then waiting until now to endorse a candidate is both cynical and manipulative.

If I'm going to endorse a candidate, then I do it early. If it actually takes me this long to make up my mind, then there's no sense expecting others to make up theirs any more quickly (or on my say-so). Yes, I feel strongly about the candidates; not only in my district, but across the country as well. Yes, I feel the election is important; so important that I don't want to see any American waste their opportunity to vote. Early voting has already begun, in fact, so we could all vote today. I'm a bit of a traditionalist, so I'm waiting until the actual Election Day (also to give myself more time to reach a decision).

That's the only real reason to wait, either to vote or to endorse: because you're not sure who the best is. Often, we are, and we usually have no trouble saying so; but there's nothing wrong, especially in these uncertain times, with taking as much time as you have to weigh all the factors. Maybe nothing will change between now and next Tuesday; but if the last two years have taught us anything, it's that politics are full of surprises.

So, if you've made up your mind, then good for you. I say go out and vote right now (if you're able to, of course). Make whatever endorsements you like, for whatever reason you like, and don't hesitate to tell everyone you meet. Speech is still free, after all. As for myself ... I've still got a few days left.

No matter who "wins" next week, don't stop the exchange

2010-10-25T03:23:00.001-04:00

The period right after an election is the most important point at which the free exchange of ideas needs to continue. Never settle into a "we won, they lost" or vice versa attitude, and never believe that, just because one side won, it means their ideas won. After the last election, a coworker told me she believed conservatism was "dead", along with its ideas. The last year and a half has proven that neither of those is true. Just because one side "wins" is no reason to ignore what the other side has to say.

Here are a few items in my online store to remind you of a few important things: first of all, that the goal is not to promote partisanism, but activism; that it's not about politics, but issues; that the voters are the ruling class in America; and that being right without knowing why you're right is the same as being wrong. Spread the word; keep the exchange of ideas open and free. And keep your minds open.

Create personalized gifts at Zazzle.

Free speech meets the "free press"

2010-10-21T05:08:00.002-04:00

Juan Williams was fired this week from his job at National Public Radio. He's a world class political analyst who has won many awards for journalistic excellence, including an Emmy. His writings have appeared in a wide range of publications, such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Ebony, and Atlantic Monthly. He holds several degrees, and contributes and appears regularly on many shows and stations.

Why would a man with such credentials be fired by NPR, an institution with a stated goal to "[e]xpand the reach and relevance of NPR and member stations to current and new audiences"? He was fired for expressing his personal apprehension about seeing Muslims on airplanes. He didn't do this on NPR; in fact, he said this on Fox News as part of a discussion of whether America has a "Muslim dilemma". After Mr. Williams, an African American, said that he would be nervous at the sight of a Muslim on the same airplane as he, NPR, citing their own "editorial standards and practices", announced that Mr. Williams' contract was terminated.

Though protected in the same amendment, those who exercise their right to free speech are often punished for doing so by their employers in today's free press. I shouldn't say "today's" free press, since the forerunners of today's "mainstream media" were just as prone to censuring (and censoring) reporters and news anchors. The problem is, you rarely hear about these sorts of punishments, as frequent as they are. People are fired all the time from all sorts of jobs for expressing their personal feelings about a particular issue, whether or not it has anything to do with their job. Well, that's the right of the employer, I suppose; but it seems especially inappropriate that a news agency, supposedly a guardian of both free speech and free thought, should fire one of their best analysts for exercising his freedom of speech.

Juan Williams is just the latest and most prominent example of this. In the last six months, two well-loved local anchors (perhaps more) found themselves the victims of media discrimination. I posted before about Shad Olson, the South Dakota news anchor who lost his job after speaking at a Tea Party rally in his home state. He never suggested that his appearance at the event was endorsed by his station. He didn't go there advocating or opposing any political candidate. He simply fulfilled his duty as a citizen to speak when he had something to say.

A few months later, a Virginia weather reporter named Jon Cash was fired for saying that "the Lord had called [him] to a full-time ministry", though not for another year. Not content to wait a year, the general manager of the news station promptly fired him for making comments that were "bad for business". Jon Cash is something of a local hero, as he's been the weather man for about 20 years. Within days of his firing, a Facebook page was formed under the name "Bring Back Jon Cash". It now has over 7,000 members.

Neither Mr. Olson nor Mr. Cash gave their employers any reason to doubt their dedication. Aside from the awards both men had won and their immense popularity with the local audiences, they were both so fair and objective in their reporting that none of the viewers would get even a hint of their political or evangelical leanings. And yet, within hours of statements made by the two men, neither one of them either on air or speaking in the name of their stations, they were both disciplined by their employers, and were both forced to seek new ones.

People like to talk about how the Republican Party lately has been "purging" itself of all moderates in favor of ideological purity; they also see Fox News as taking a similar tack, gathering more and more conservative commentators to themselves as time progresses. In reality, though, the mainstream media is the entity most guilty of ideological purging, as conservative commentators have steadily seen themselves fired or forced out of positions at CNN, HLN, MSNBC, and even some of the broadcast stations, which created a steady supply from which Fox News and Fox Business have drawn most of their new recruits. Though it's easy for some to say those anchors and reporters were fired because they were "kooks" and are now free to join a station of kooks, it's harder to be glib when it happens to someone you've known and watched for years.

The cases of Shad Olson and Jon Cash are microcosms of the larger issue, one that is perhaps more clear in the case of Juan Williams: you cannot expect to serve in today's mainstream media and hold opinions about politics, religion, or national security that run contrary to what the media declares to be mainstream. I recall an episode of "Boston Legal" from about five or six years ago in which a singer was barred from singing what was perceived as an antiwar song in a club whose owner was prowar. Though the judge on the show ruled in favor of the club owner, she also made it clear that she personally agreed with the lawyer's argument that private enterprise owners are exercising free speech discrimination where the government cannot. Perhaps they are. On the other hand, so is the free press.

Because I Can

2010-10-18T14:34:00.000-04:00

The New York Times is asking people to submit videos on why they'll vote this year; what issues drive them to the polls. What drives me to the polls? Freedom.

Still thinking like a national party?

2010-10-15T13:18:00.001-04:00

It didn't take the early political partisans in America all that long to realize the country was growing too large for local parties to have much influence on the national stage. In fact, it was about one generation after the first official United States Congress that parties in the north began to actively recruit likeminded politicians in the south to become their allies in Congress (same story as now, just two hundred years earlier). They were pretty clumsy about it at first, so a lot of parties sprang into existence only to disappear shortly thereafter. Eventually, around the time of the Civil War, we were left with just Republicans and Democrats (though neither really resembles their namesakes today).

On the other hand, they still act an awful lot like the parties of the 1800's. Disregarding local issues and even the question of just how loyal a particular politician is to the platform, parties aggressively recruit anyone who wears their label, as long as they can win the election and tip the balance of power to one side or the other. Of course, that gives you a lot of candidates like Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, who changed parties not once but twice in his political career, which ultimately led to his losing his Senate seat. It also gives you candidates like Mike Castle in Delaware who was recruited by national Republicans to run for Senate but rejected by Delawarean Republicans in the primary in favor of Christine O'Donnell. As the axiom goes, "all politics are local".

Some don't think so. The New York Times actually took O'Donnell's nomination as an example of politics being national, since she was supported by the Tea Party. However, it was Castle who was recruited specifically because he was seen as the Republican candidate most likely to succeed in Democratic Delaware. While he may have easily won the general election, the question of whether he would have legislated as a "Republican" or not is certainly debatable. The GOP primary voters didn't think so, and they responded by nominating O'Donnell, who was clearly the more conservative candidate.

Some see it as a "disaster" for the national GOP, as Castle could very well have flipped control of the Senate into Republican hands. However, if you're like me and are tired of seeing national politics take the form of a two-way chess (or shouting) match with the occasional brave third player poking his head out of the crowd, then this is fantastic. National parties focus on national politics. They claim to have the "big picture" in mind. That doesn't leave much room for the "small" pictures, though, which our representatives in Congress are supposed to address.

So, again, it comes down to which candidate the Republicans in Delaware (not the national Republicans) think would better represent their interests in Congress. O'Donnell apparently fit that description. Whether she'll win or not is irrelevant. She's not required to win in order to be the nominee.

National parties don't care about local issues; not entirely. They have their own agenda, as they always have: to oppose the other side. No matter how altruistic they may be, they're prepared to sacrifice whatever local issues they must in order to win. That's why people don't trust Republicans and Democrats; that's why a majority of Americans don't belong to either party; and that's why candidates like Christine O'Donnell have been winning nomination fights across the country. This is no longer a two-player game. Local candidates (and voters) are joining the party of no, as in no, we don't care about your national agenda; no, we don't care about your long-term strategy for controlling Congress; no, we don't care who you think can win; and no, we don't care if we lose. They've chosen the candidates they prefer, and come November 2nd, they'll vote, many of them for the first time. Win or lose, it's going to be a sight to see.

Update: 16 October 2010

Though some have done so for months, as the elections draw near more Democrats have begun to distance themselves from Speaker Pelosi. It is another example of national politics versus local politics. The Democratic Party recruits not on ideology but on brand. However, while the national party may consider itself a big tent with a diverse membership, if your members can't even agree on who should lead or what your agenda should be, then you'll be much worse for the trouble. That's why Republicans have been "purging" themselves for months now. Is there any doubt as to which approach has been more successful? Those doubts will be dispelled on November 2nd.

America's failures

2010-10-14T23:10:00.000-04:00

A quick reminder as we enter one of the more contentious phases of democracy: the only times America has failed have been when we divided ourselves against each other.

America's failures shirts from Zazzle.com

2010-10-10T00:06:00.000-04:00

I had the opportunity tonight to attend another candidate forum between Congressman Glenn Nye, Scott Rigell, and Kenny Golden. As I've said before, it's important to meet and listen to the candidates in person to get a better feel for their character. Ideology and issues aside, character is what defines a candidate. Tonight's forum, hosted by the League of Women's Voters, gave all three plenty of opportunities to show their character.

I arrived fairly early to the debate and had a chance to meet some members of the Rigell campaign. They were busy posting signs and handing out information for their candidate to a degree that was ... let's just say unmatched by either of the other camps. It was evidence either of the enthusiasm gap or the fundraising gap (or both) between Rigell and his opponents. At the end of the night, though, as one person observed, it all comes down to the candidates and how well they themselves perform.

I've been to one other debate between the candidates, but last time I only had the chance to watch the candidates onstage. Tonight, I got to meet and shake each of their hands and even speak with them for a bit. My impressions of the three men generally bore out throughout the evening.

Kenny Golden, the independent challenger with a resume twice as long as the other candidates', seemed to have a patriarchal presence. For every question he was asked, he had an experience to relate. For almost every issue raised, he could reference a time when he had already worked to resolve such an issue. The imposed austerity of his campaign couldn't quite keep him from appearing as a father-figure every now and then during the evening, though his opponents are certainly not children.

Scott Rigell clearly won the title of Most Energetic tonight. Perhaps feeding off his supporters' enthusiasm (or maybe they feed off his?), he seemed like a college athlete about to square off against his archrival on the field (an image boosted by the fact that the debate took place in a university conference room). He was very personable, as well. When I showed him my business card with the tagline "It's not about politics; it's about issues", he told me of a conversation he'd had with a friend when deciding to run for Congress. The friend informed Rigell that he wasn't very political, but Rigell assured him that politics wasn't his reason for running, but rather concern for the direction the country is heading.

Congressman Nye arrived after his opponents and seemed a little weary. The dual burdens of campaigning and conducting House business (though Congress is adjourned for the time being) seem to be taking their toll. He spent tonight's debate much as he had the previous one, reestablishing his bipartisan credentials and fending the attacks of his two conservative opponents. As the campaigns have evolved in the last month and a half, so apparently has Nye's style, as tonight he was not above firing a shot or two.

The questions and answers were more substantive tonight, though the issues remained the same: the federal deficit, infrastructure, immigration, job creation, the potential closing of certain military installations in Virginia, and education. The themes in the candidates' answers remained the same, as well. Golden touted his experience at every turn (and it was a compelling argument nearly every time). Rigell offered business-oriented solutions through much of the debate and berated Nye for his record of voting with Democrats on most issues. Nye countered by pointing out the major issues on which he'd broken ranks with his party and emphasizing the bipartisan partnerships he's formed both inside and outside the halls of Congress. He said he stands ready to work with businesses, teachers, other members of Congress, and with Governor McDonnell to find solutions to our problems.

I won't get into specifics about the questions and answers. On quite a few issues, like closing and securing the U.S./Mexican border and the need for highspeed rail in Hampton Roads, the candidates actually agreed, though they disagree on how to do certain things. Again, as in the previous debate, it came down to character tonight. In their arguments for why they each deserve our votes, they each tried to stress their own independence and concern for the needs of the district. I liked Rigell's accounts of how, in the course of his campaign, he'd met people across Hampton Roads who would tell him of their struggles and what they need for their businesses and families. He made the analogy that campaigning was like a job interview and, as a business owner, this was his first time in a while being on "the other side of the desk". I've said before that, in this time of economic uncertainty, what Congress really needs is more men and women with experience in the business world; and while Kenny Golden's resume is extensive and Glenn Nye is the only one of the three to ever serve in Congress, Scott Rigell is clearly the man with the most business experience.

There are still just over three weeks before the election. I'm not sure who I believe would make the best representative for this district in the next Congress, but the more debates I attend, the closer I feel to getting an answer. I encourage everyone to do the same. We've already seen some extraordinary things this election cycle, with some very unlikely candidates making ground in places never before thought to be competitive. No matter where you live or who your candidates are, don't make up your mind just yet about the outcome; and whatever you do, don't sit out this election. As Congressman Nye told me when I mentioned to him that I'd not yet decided which candidate to support, "stay tuned".

What I've been up to elsewhere

2010-10-09T02:01:00.000-04:00

As you may know by now, I'm not just an op-ed writer. I also run a (currently) small sci-fi/fantasy website called Fourth-day Universe. There, I and my band of merry sci-fi writers review books, movies, conventions, etc., in addition to writing our own original fiction. You can check out our website at FourthdayUniverse.com, "Like" us on Facebook, and follow our updates on Twitter @4thdayU. We even have a merchandise outlet at Zazzle.com. You can check out (and buy) our stuff on this nifty little panel here:

View more personalized gifts from Zazzle.

Public versus Private: Censorship in America

2010-10-06T18:12:00.000-04:00

Often, a particular value, action, image, or even word will be deemed "unacceptable" in the public arena, such as nudity or sexual activity. Others are so abhorrent, such as murder, that they're unacceptable anywhere at any time. In the United States of America, however, an idea is practically never taboo, and the very first rights guaranteed in our Constitution include the right to express our ideas. Murder depicted in a movie, for example, is acceptable, though many may choose not to watch such a movie. As long as the expression of those ideas does not conceivably infringe on the rights of others, they are hardly ever challenged. Several things I've read and seen today, though, illustrate the problems with ensuring that one person's rights do not infringe on another's.

The first was a news report on the Westboro Baptist Church's protest near the funeral of a fallen soldier. Though the soldier himself was not gay, the church members argue that "U.S. deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are punishment for Americans' immorality, including tolerance of homosexuality and abortion." Their protest, and the suggestion that Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder is going to Hell for "enabling" homosexuals, so angered the Marine's father, Albert Snyder, that he sued them in court and won a $5 million verdict. The church appealed, saying they stayed outside the funeral and merely engaged in a general religious protest against gays in the military. The case has finally made it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the justices are currently debating whether the right to free speech in this case infringed the rights of the family to grieve in peace. As of this posting, no ruling has been issued.

It reminds me of the case of the proposed Islamic Center near Ground Zero in New York City. The grief over the deaths of thousands on 9/11 is still very real and very painful for many, but the planners and supporters of the project argue that shouldn't overwhelm freedom of religion. Common sense would seem to dictate they simply build it somewhere else without making a fuss, but, as many have asked, how far away is "far enough"? The same question exists in this potential ruling: will the high court rule that they were "far enough" from the funeral? Will religious freedom trump personal pain? And if the court should rule for the family, what ramifications will that have for others who seek to freely express their own religion, such as Muslims in New York City?

The second piece was written by the entertainment magazine Movieline yesterday on the anniversary of the advent of the NC-17 movie rating. This replaced the earlier X-rating for movies deemed by the industry to be too extreme, in one way or another, for children to see even with parental supervision. The article has an unforgiving stance on the rating itself, believing it to be a contributing factor in the box office failures of so many movies that received the rating. They're probably right, though it may have more to do with the presence of the "objectionable content" itself. The rating system itself is seen as a form of censorship, with the NC-17 rating attaching a sort of death knell to any movie that receives it. Oddly enough, Hollywood itself is often criticized as a place where morals go to die. It's ironic, I suppose, that they should be accused of trying to impose morals surreptitiously through ratings.

This isn't so much an example of censorship as it is an example of how personal choice comes into play when it comes to a society's values. People go to movies to be entertained, and occasionally enlightened. The rating system, theoretically, gives them a greater sense of what sort of entertainment they can expect to find and what sort of content they might want to avoid. It's been so successful over the years that TV shows have gotten into the act, as well as video games and even some books. People in general, and myself in particular, appreciate knowing more about the book or movie on which they're about to spend their time and money; it's why movie reviewing as industry has thrived for so long. The rating system doesn't remove anyone's choices or freedom, no matter how it may affect the ticket sales of a specific movie; it in fact gives us a greater capacity to choose by giving us more information.

What movie you choose to see, like what book you choose to read, is a personal, private choice. However, some books and movies are imposed on us in the public arena, such as in public schools. That brings us to the third item I read today, the story of a school teacher named Risha Mullins. Ms. Mullins is a teacher with a profound love of reading. She created "literature circles" for her students to increase their interest in reading, but the books provided weren't that successful. Instead, she bought a bushel of young adult literature, and the students quickly became enamored with the program. Not only did the program grow to over a hundred students in the first year and a half, but the test and reading scores among the students also rose significantly.

However, some of the books that were chosen caught the attention and ire of some of the parents. Certain themes, such as homosexuality, caused a backlash that snowballed over the next year, culminating in Ms. Mullins losing her job. Many across the country became aware of her situation when, among others, some of the authors whose books the students were reading came to her defense. However, she never intended for her struggle to become a national issue. Her only objective, from the beginning, has been to improve the education of her students.

I had an experience one year in high school. My teacher wanted to show an uneditted version of "Braveheart" to our English class, but since we were all under 18, she had us get permission slips from our parents first. My mother sent a letter in to the school and had the video pulled. It wasn't a huge deal; no one got fired or anything. It was simply an example of one parent's ideology versus one teacher's. I appreciate what my mother did, since I know she, like the parents who involved themselves in the Mullins debacle, only wanted what was best for her children. That doesn't always need to lead to a contest of wills or result in people losing their jobs. For the most part, we're all trying to do the "right thing", though we may disagree over what that is.

America, in attempting to be a "big tent", has welcomed a host of people who refuse, for whatever reason, to get along with each other. In our private lives, we're allowed to watch what we want, attend whatever church we want (or not), and read whatever books we choose. In the public arena, though, you can't do anything without the approval of the whole. That's why so many people hate Congress at any given time; because it very often moves forward with laws and initiatives that we pay for, whether we approve of them or not. It's the same case with public education; we don't want teachers being paid with our tax dollars to teach something we don't want our children to learn.

In the case of Ms. Mullins, the public school system is the only "bad actor" I can see. The teacher just wanted to teach the children; the parents just wanted to protect them. It's the school's job to mediate the disputes. They should have defended their own, who as it turns out was one of their best. They should have offered the parents the simple choice to opt their children out of reading certain books. I don't like to make judgments without all the facts, but I'm certain there was a better way to handle this situation than the way in which it was.

I'm often torn on the subject of public school programs. They're slaves to a system that oftens fails them and the children who attend them. On the other hand, the public schools I attended were first-rate and graduated hundreds of students each year, many with honors. I sometimes wonder if private schools would be better, or even homeschooling, since the education of children is primarily the responsibility of the parents. However, especially today, we can't expect parents to do everything themselves. So teachers are expected to be babysitters as well as educators, watching over dozens of children at a time, helping them learn, but not conflicting with the wishes of the parents in any case. It's not an enviable task.

My heart goes out to this teacher, whose own heart certainly seems to be in the right place. I also pray for the family of Matthew Snyder, whose life ended so abruptly and whose absence I'm sure will be felt for years to come. Censorship has the power to protect families like the Snyder family; but it also has the power to destroy careers, like Ms. Mullins'. It's no wonder the Supreme Court is taking so much time to deliver a ruling.

Freakonomics Movie Trailer Official (HD)

2010-09-27T22:48:00.000-04:00

I may just need to watch this.

The Project's outline. Your thoughts?

2010-09-25T21:01:00.000-04:00

Earlier today, I wrote a preliminary outline for "The Project". Obviously, over the next year, as I write and research the topics, I'll revise whatever elements I feel need to be. Let me know what you think of the outline, and what you would like to see included.

How the current systems of primaries, caucuses, and other nominating conventions work; history of nominating candidates; the difficulties with write-in campaigns and why they are more democratic (and the answer to the problem).
History of political parties in America; a brief rundown of the parties, past and present, how they came to be, their abuses of the nominating and electoral systems, and how those abuses may be rectified by the proposed reforms.
Other attempts at reforms, past, present, and planned; why they did/did not/could/could not work; what lessons can be learned from them.
The presidential nominating system; why the two-party primary schedules by their very existence ruin the prospects of even the most serious third-party bids.
Exactly how the new system would work.
The need to eliminate party identification from election ballots at every level; voters should learn (and remember) for themselves who the candidates are before they arrive at the polls, rather than wait for the ballot to inform them of who the major (and minor) party candidates are; voting on issues rather than parties; how, in just one generation, it could eliminate the stigma of party labels from politics.
How this relates to eliminating the practice of dividing legislatures into "majority" and "minority" parties, and reforming leadership positions in legislatures as a consequence.
The fates of national and local parties in the wake of such reforms (and why that may keep them from ever supporting such reforms); how national parties may more closely resemble the Tea Party; increased influence for and from "single-issue" parties and candidates.

I'm also considering adding a section or two on the role of the media throughout history in perpetuating not only the two-party system but parties in general. Also, the role of the courts will no doubt be greatly affected by the new election laws and practices (should they ever be implemented, that is).

There you have it; eight to ten chapters, not very long, but hopefully very profound. What do you think?

I'm writing a book

2010-09-23T21:54:00.000-04:00

I've been writing fictional stories of one kind or another since I was old enough to write. I currently have several novels planned, in fact, in addition to the short story series I'm developing for my website, Fourth-day Universe. In all this time, though, I've never seriously considered writing a work of nonfiction until now. I've had vague plans about publishing a collection of my blog posts, some day, depending on the success of the blog itself; but this is a far more deliberate and specific project.

I posted a pair of polls over the summer asking two questions: Would you support altering election laws so that candidates' party affiliations and identifications are removed from the ballot, and Would you support changing the ways that state and federal governments operate so they are no longer divided into "majority" and "minority" parties. For a while, the responses were overwhelmingly "yes" to both questions; but as the window for answering drew to a close, the responses grew more even. The first question ended up perfectly split, 50-50, while the second question drew 64% "yes" and 35% "no".

I asked the questions because I feel they are important steps both in reducing partisanism in Congress and increasing voter participation during the entire election process. Last May, I wrote a trio of posts entitled "The Beginning of a Solution, Parts I, II, and III." In them, I wrote of the need to reform the way in which this country nominates its candidates for elective office. The primary/caucus/convention system has more than its share of flaws. I intend to explore the alternatives and even present my own. I also wrote about how allowing Congress and state legislatures to be divided into majority and minority parties gives a virtual stamp of approval on partisan warfare. My book will explore the possibilities of eliminating this practice, which, in conjuncture with reforming the nominating process, would hopefully ease the pressure to conform to national party standards. In all, the goal is to create an environment where representatives pay more attention to their states and districts than they do to their "leadership".

Those who know me and/or follow my blog know that I'm both passionate about writing and highly opinionated. I hope you've at least been enlightened if not entertained or educated by my posts. However, as virtually any of my teachers or professors (or parents) could tell you, while I'm highly intelligent, I'm not highly organized. This isn't usually a problem when writing fiction or even blog posts; my style tends to be more organic. Fortunately, I'm intelligent enough to realize that my normal method of writing won't be as productive when writing non-fiction. As soon as the elections are over, I'm going to begin researching my subject in earnest, as well as outlining the book itself. You'll be able to read updates on my progress on my Twitter account at FreeExofIdeas.

I'll also take time every now and then to update the blog on the more important issues, including major presidential addresses such as the State of the Union. But my target date for completion, if not publication, is late-2011/early-2012 before the presidential primaries and caucuses begin, so don't expect to see many posts here during the next year.

I haven't decided on a title yet; I imagine that will take care of itself. For now, I'm calling it "The Project". (I know; not terribly imaginative, is it?) Wish me luck.

The people have spoken (so get used to it).

2010-09-23T18:56:00.001-04:00

The polls are in, and whether the majority of America wishes for a more conservative government or not, it is certain that the majority of primary voters do. Not only have plenty of conservatives won nomination fights (and we can definitely call at least some of these primaries "fights") over their more moderate opponents, but participation in Republican primaries has eclipsed turnout in Democratic contests.

Notable examples include Carl Paladino, the GOP nominee for New York Governor, Marco Rubio, who long ago forced Charlie Crist into an independent bid for the open Florida Senate seat, and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware. Notable exceptions include Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman in California, Terry Branstad in Iowa, and Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire. Arlen Specter, of course, is a special case in that he was rejected by both conservatives and liberals in Pennsylvania. That particular Senate seat will go to either conservative Pat Toomey or Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak, both of whom are seen as sufficiently "pure" by primary voters.

That's really the standard these days for nominating candidates, isn't it? Before you think it's just the Republicans (or rather, Tea Partiers) who do this, remember that Barack Obama won his party's nomination over a much better known and qualified Hillary Clinton by outflanking her on the Left, especially on the issue of the Iraq War. Remember also two years earlier when Joe Lieberman, once the Democrats' nominee for vice president, couldn't even get renominated because of the same issue (though he could certainly get reelected).

It's a simple fact that all decisions, including who our choices will be in November, are made by people who take the time and make the effort to vote. In 2008, there were more people voting for Democrats, whether conservative, moderate or liberal, than for Republicans of any kind. Now, it seems more conservatives have gone and will go to the polls this year. Once again, purity seems set to win over pragmatism.

That's not to say these candidates aren't pragmatic or even good ones. Many have strong business backgrounds, which will no doubt prove very useful as we work to rebuild the country's economy. Many have never held public office before, which can be both a help and a hindrance. While they may need a certain amount of on-the-job training, they won't feel as constrained by "the way things are". And, in the case of the ideologues on both sides among the new candidates, they'll be more resistant to the "culture of corruption" in Washington.

These "upstart candidates" have caused more than a few headaches to both the Democratic and Republican national parties. While candidates like O'Donnell were challenging "establishment picks" like Mike Castle on the Right, the Left invested millions of dollars (and man-hours) defending their own choices, such as Michael Bennet in Colorado. I think it's a good sign. While the national parties may be watching the "big picture" of nominating as many "electable" candidates as they can, the voters are focusing on their own big picture: the reality that they'll be stuck with whomever is nominated as their candidate and probably their representative in Washington. If their choice of a candidate happens to conflict with whomever the national party thinks can win and give them that final tie-breaking vote in Congress, then they say, respectfully, "Screw you" to the national party. What's in a name? As the Bard himself taught us, nothing. Remember, Arlen Specter was once supported by the RNC, and he ended up betraying them.

So, forget about electability and national strategy. Ignore the implications of nominating O'Donnell over Castle. Trade one man's big picture for another's. Here's my big picture: these elections are so the people can decide who their candidates will be, not so the parties can. I am no fan of the primary system, but as long as both major parties seek to perpetuate it, I say let it work against them and for the people.

New products at Zazzle

2010-09-11T16:28:00.001-04:00

Check out our new gear at Zazzle. Our goal is not to promote partisanism, but to promote activism.

Design a personalized gift at Zazzle.

A different perspective today

2010-09-11T11:10:00.003-04:00

Nine years ago on September 11th, I was in Utah as a missionary for my church. LDS missionaries don't generally read newspapers, watch TV, or even listen to the radio, so as far as I knew when my fellow missionary and I left our apartment, this was just another day to preach the gospel of Christ. When we arrived at our first appointment that morning, though, I began to get hints that this day was different.

Our appointment came out of his trailer to meet us. We acted as we normally do, cheerfully greeting him, until he stopped us with the words, "You don't know, do you?" He took us inside and showed us the news report. I could see a building, unrecognizable to me at first, with billows of smoke coming out of it. I don't think any of us knew what was really happening just then, other than that a plane or planes had crashed. The full significance of the event took a long time to set in to my mind.

Most missionaries stay in the field for two years, and I was only halfway through mine when 9/11 occured. For an entire year after, I managed to avoid most of the furor and fear that had gripped the nation, because, like I had been for an entire year before, I was "removed" from the world. I didn't know what the Department of Homeland Security was, who al Qaeda were, or what we were doing to fight them. The first real effect I had felt from the attack was nearly a year later when it came time to fly home and having to take off my shoes before airport security would allow me through.

What was I doing that year while America tried to reset itself after such a horrific event? I was preaching the gospel. While most people had spent the first year after 9/11 trying to decide how to respond to the attacks, I had spent it responding to questions about Christ. While others wondered who had done this and why, I wondered whom I would be teaching next. While others had their focus on worldly matters, I focused on spiritual matters. I spent the second year of my mission in much the same way I had spent the first year. Though I never actually heard President Bush's speech about the need to continue on as we had before the attacks, I was already taking his advice.

I had always known that growing up in the church had given me a different perspective on life, and it certainly has in this case. The scriptures remind us, in many different ways, that vengeance is God's prerogative, and that ours is forgiveness. We're told repeatedly that the law of God is love, for our enemies as well as our neighbors. In the case of the nation of Islam, they are sometimes the same thing. I've said before and still believe that the authors of terror and murder deserve whatever punishment they have coming to them; but that doesn't mean we should hate them. When a group or nation declares war on us or our way of life, it is our responsibility to defend ourselves, and even those who cannot defend themselves; but we should never do it with hate in our hearts. We were enemies with Adolf Hitler, with Mussolini, and with Hirohito, but when World War II ended, we helped Germany, Italy, and Japan rebuild, and now we're strong allies with each nation. We were enemies with Saddam Hussein, but now we have what could be a strong ally in Iraq.

Did Islam itself attack us? Even if it did, we should not hate them, anymore than we should hate each other for how we each choose to respond to the attack. This controversy over the "Ground Zero Mosque" is embarrassing to every one of us. Those who oppose building the center have, in many cases, legitimate anger and pain in their hearts, and that should be respected, not derided, by those who support it. On the other hand, many who oppose it do so for no other reason than they hate Islam. Prejudice and hatred should be fought just as ardently as we fight terror and fear.

Pastor Terry Jones, the man who caused so much controversy himself lately, said this day he would not follow through on his planned Koran-burning. I believe that is the right decision, though I may wonder if he made it for the right reasons. Nevertheless, his proposed burning has sparked outrage across the globe. A riot in Afghanistan resulted in the death of a protester. Westboro Baptist Church, the same church that protested outside of a gay soldier's funeral, threatened to go forward with their own burning if Pastor Jones did not (no word yet on if they have). And just now, there are reports of British Muslims who have burned an American flag along with a picture of Pastor Jones in response to the planned, if canceled, Koran-burning.

This should be a day of remembrance, not vengeance; a day of understanding, not blindness; a day of love, not hate. As President Obama reminded us today, "We are not at war with Islam". Our duty is to remember those whom we have lost, to honor their memories. We do that, as both Presidents Bush and Obama remind us, by coming together as a nation and as a community. We are strongest when we stand united, as we did after the attacks nine years ago, as we have done in every moment of great distress in our nation's history that ultimately lead to victory. The only times America has failed have been when we divided ourselves against each other.

Let us all come together now. We are not Muslims, Jews, or Christians; believers or atheists; Republicans or Democrats. We are Americans. This is a truly great nation, one that has stood as an inspiration to people across the world for centuries now. When one of us attacks another, over our religion (or lack thereof) or our politics, we are all damaged. As a missionary, I learned that people would look at me as an example of my church, and that, however unfair it may be, my behavior would reflect on the church itself. How does our behavior as Americans, on this and every day, reflect on America?

Know why you're right. tee shirts from Zazzle.com

2010-09-01T15:44:00.000-04:00

Know why you're right. tee shirts from Zazzle.com

Check out this latest in Free Exchange's product line, which reminds us that being right without knowing why you're right is the same as being wrong.

The Killing Fields Of Caracas - Investors.com

2010-08-27T00:14:00.001-04:00

For any who think that Hugo Chavez is just another leader of just another nation, or that celebrities like Sean Penn have the right idea in "reaching out to him in friendship", or that the murder capital of the world is anywhere other than Caracas, here's a wake up call. While our president issues a report to the United Nations on how terribly American citizens abuse human rights, here's the winner of the Miss Universe pageant, Stefania Fernandez of Venezuela, showing the wisdom and courage to defy one of the greatest human rights abusers in the world today. Our president would do well to take notice.

The Killing Fields Of Caracas - Investors.com

It's not a 'ruling class' (and it's not semantics)

2010-08-25T21:53:00.005-04:00

So, a couple of days ago, Conor Friedersdorf, a senior editor on Andrew Sullivan's "Daily Dish", basically reposted a piece by a conservative commentator, William Voegeli. In it, Mr. Voegeli explains that the "Tea Party backlash" has risen in response to an increased arrogance on the part of the current leadership in Washington. On the other hand, replacing the "establishment" isn't as simple as voting the current leadership out of office.

Here's how the whole thing goes. There's always going to be an "establishment", whether its one built on democracy, theocracy, or as Mr. Voegeli believes the current one sees itself, on a meritocracy, filled with "eternal valedictorians" who consider anyone who disagrees with their view of the world to be a fool (and they don't suffer fools). But while the meritocratic establishment learned from the previous establishment, they're not so likely to "teach" the next one; so the question is, how will the next establishment learn, and what will they learn?

That's actually a good point; but it's not how Mr. Friedersdorf saw the issue. He tries to put it "succinctly" by asking the Tea Partiers: "if we're choosing our ruling class the wrong way now, what alternative do you recommend?" He's missing the point; which is stunning, since Mr. Voegeli already summed it up:

"An alternative reading of what the Tea Party movement does and should want is not a better establishment but a less autonomous establishment, subject to the checks and balances of a re-engaged citizenry and a re-invigorated Constitution that constrains its discretion. "

We're not trying to elect a "ruling class"; we're trying to elect leaders who realize that they aren't a ruling class. And that's the answer to his question. We don't need a new system for electing leaders (except possibly as regards our primary and other nominating conventions, of which I've already written); we just need our leaders to remember their role. It's not as our rulers, but as our servants. They may be better educated and more experienced, but that does not excuse either the arrogance or the dismissiveness we have all seen in Washington and in our own state capitals.

Perhaps it was just a poor choice of words on Mr. Friedersdorf's part; but if so, then it was extremely poor indeed. There's a culture of corruption at work in our leadership, and it feeds on pride; the pride that comes from having power over others, and that tells them they're above accountability, that they are actually the "ruling class". You cannot govern, especially in America, without the consent of the governed. We rule in America (as easy as that is for everyone to forget).

Give me a man (or woman) who knows his strength, but doesn't flaunt it; who seeks to lead, but not to have power; who wants to help, but not to impose; and who owns his mistakes and seeks to rectify them. Give me someone humble, but self-assured; courageous, but careful; intelligent, but thoughtful; compassionate, but firm. There aren't many out there, I know, but with 300 million from which to choose, we should be able to find them.

I don't have a problem with elites running the government; in fact, I want elites running the government. I just don't want them running over me in the process.

Follow me on Facebook and Twitter (and Zazzle)

2010-08-24T18:12:00.005-04:00

Free Exchange has come a long way in the last year and a half; about a hundred and twenty posts, covering issues from leadership to partisanship, racism to bailouts, energy, education, entitlements, and the economy; from the halls of Congress in Washington to the shores of California and beyond; debating death, taxes, and something more onerus than both, elections. I've tried to keep an open mind with my posts and encourage honest debate on all these subjects and more. I hope you've all enjoyed my writing and been at least partially enlightened, as well.

There is more to this blog than just my opinion pieces, of course. I have three accounts on other sites that I hope you would follow, also. I have a page on Facebook where I hope to start full discussions with my readers on a wide range of subjects. The topics currently include proposed changes to the Constitution, ending the practice of dividing Congress into "majority" and "minority" parties, and reforming elections and education in America. It's also a place to receive updates on related news stories and other items.

It also serves as a feed for my Twitter account, which will contain links to all my posts from here. Twitter gives me a chance to succinctly respond to items posted by news organizations, such as Yahoo, AP, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN, etc. As I've said before, this blog is for opinion pieces, and is not a news outlet; but I will post links to news stories on Twitter, and even write out responses to items I feel deserve more than just a blurb. My account there will have updates from all of my outlets.

My third account is at Zazzle, where I create t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, etc., with little "nuggets of wisdom" from my blog. Yes, it is an online store, and yes, I am asking you to buy my products. But my purpose is twofold: one, to supplement my modest income; and two, to advertise my ideas (not just my products) beyond the blogosphere. My products serve as reminders to everyone that "It's not about politics, it's about issues," and that "Politics affect politicians, but issues affect everyone." They're non-partisan, and I don't think anyone would feel out of place wearing or displaying any of them during the election season and beyond.

I started this blog to promote issues and the free discussion of them. I have my own view, but I'm happy and even eager to hear other views. I also started it to encourage more activism on the part of the "average" American. We have a great freedom in this country, to choose our leaders and hold them accountable for their actions, and I believe we should all embrace that freedom at every opportunity. I started this blog with that ideal in mind, and my Facebook, Twitter, and Zazzle accounts each serve in their own ways to achieve that ideal. I hope you will help me in this, and keep spreading a free exchange of ideas.

The man who does not vote has no advantage over the man who cannot vote

2010-08-23T22:51:00.003-04:00

Just borrowing/amending a line from Mark Twain to promote a little more activism. The general election season is steadily on the march, and you can expect things to get more tense as November approaches.

At least, you can expect things to get tense in Washington and in the candidates' headquarters. Whether or not it's tense for any of you depends on how closely you've been paying attention these last few years. True, things were getting bad in this country before the financial meltdown, but that was when, I think, the country started paying more attention to what Washington was doing.

In the last few years, Congress has spent more money trying to revive the economy than they have on any other endeavor (with mixed results, at best). They've passed more controversial legislation than almost any Congress in history, and in shorter time. The American people have responded with a massive shift in ideological enthusiasm. The same left wing of the country that rose to help sweep a Democratic supermajority into Congress seems to be taking a seat while the Tea Party has already ensured that several long-term legislators will not be returning to Washington this next year.

To say this political "realignment" is unprecedented would be untrue. I think we can all agree that the country has mood swings, not to mention unrealistic expectations of our leadership. On the other hand, while it is the responsibility of the people to keep an eye on our elected representatives in Washington, it's often the fault of the people who don't vote. How many Americans just don't like Congress, or politics, or elections? How much do we take for granted our right to choose our leaders? We can decry the process and shout "fraud" whenever someone is elected who we feel shouldn't be; but how many Americans simply don't vote when the time comes? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: if you forget about your country, then your country will forget about you.

Whether you like the candidates or not is irrelevant; whether you like Congress or not is irrelevant. These men and women will represent you in Washington. For the next two years, they will vote for you, whether you voted for them or not; they will speak for you, whether you speak to them or not; and they will act on your behalf, whether you tell them what you want or not. You can attempt to influence them and their vote, and you may or may not succeed; but if you don't at least try, then it is certain you won't. They make decisions that can change the course of the country, and that is not something that can be safely ignored by any of us.

The next presidential election won't be for another two years; but that doesn't mean you should wait until then to exercise your rights, to vote, to speak, and to demand accountability from your representatives. The only safe option is to become involved. Whether it's running for office, convincing someone else to run, supporting a candidate, or continuing to raise issues until the candidates can no longer "safely" ignore you, you have many options. You are just as responsible for what happens in Washington as any member of Congress.

When November comes, don't let anything stop you from voting, even if the only candidate you trust is yourself. There is no such thing as a wasted vote, except the one that is not cast.

My one and only post on the "Ground Zero Mosque"

2010-08-20T15:47:00.003-04:00

I wasn't going to do this. Like the president himself and (a few) bloggers across the country, I wanted to stay out of this debate entirely (and I will); but I feel the debate itself could use a little ... reframing.

Cracked.com, a site that is normally devoted to any and all things humorous, posted an article today on how the debate about Muslims who want to build a mosque near the site of the fallen World Trade Center has become perverted the more people talk about it. The author points out three things that are often misconstrued about the issue: one, it's near the site of the 9/11 tragedy, not the site itself; two, it's a community center, not a mosque; and three, they have a right to build there that the government simply cannot ignore.

All those things are true; but even those three things distort the debate. One, hardly anyone still thinks they want to build on the site of the Twin Towers; two, it's an Islamic center, whether it's "strictly" a mosque or not; and three, it's not about wanting the government to step in and stop them, but rather simply about not wanting the building to be there at all.

This was the response I posted to Cracked's article (and please note, I don't say whether I think the center should be built):

Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should do a thing.

No one is saying the government should stop them from building a community center or even a mosque there. They're not saying it's illegal; they're saying it's wrong. Plenty of things that are wrong aren't necessarily illegal. Just like the West Baptists standing just outside the legal range of a funeral for a soldier killed in battle and shouting how glad they are he was killed, sometimes you just have to use common sense about when and where to exercise your "freedom".

Yes, it's a community center; yes, it's in a place where you couldn't even see the Twin Towers if they were still standing; and yes, politicians who have never even been to New York City have no place in this; but other people who oppose the project do have a place in it. While plenty of people who lost loved ones on 9/11 actually support building this center, there are plenty more who don't. You can't build a community center in a place where the community doesn't want it.

I say, leave the vote to the community. If New York City wants a mosque, a synagogue, or a three-ring circus built on the site, then I say let them have it; but if they say "get the hell out of our city", then I say get the hell out of their city.

Being a Congressman is about character

2010-08-20T12:15:00.004-04:00

I said in my last post that there's nothing more American than capitalism. Well, that's why I don't like to use superlatives. There is something more American, and that's patriotism; and one of the most patriotic things you can do is involve yourself in elections.

Last night, I had the opportunity to attend a candidate forum with the three men running to represent my district in the House of Representatives for the next two years: the incumbent, Democrat Glenn Nye, the Republican candidate Scott Rigell, and the independent challenger Kenny Golden. I know many people don't see much value in actually attending these events. After all, politics can get ugly, they can get dirty, and if you're really interested in what they're saying, then you can always get a transcript of the debate (which is why I won't be posting the transcript, myself; those who are interested will be able to find one easily enough).

What I will post is the impressions I got of the candidates as I watched and listened to them. That's the value of attending these forums, of going to townhalls and campaign events; as scripted as they are, and as practiced and rehearsed as the speeches and answers the candidates give may be, you have a much greater chance of learning about their character by seeing them in person than you can by simply reading about them. And last night, I feel I learned quite a bit about the three candidates.

Glenn Nye was on defense for much of the night, but he held his own fairly well against his two conservative opponents. Golden had once challenged Rigell for the GOP nomination, but became an independent before the primary. They both seemed to enjoy what one of them called "Gang Up On Glenn Night", taking the opportunity to hammer Nye for his vote on last year's controversial stimulus bill and for waiting until virtually the last minute to vote no on this year's health insurance reform. Nye responded by pointing out that hundreds of pages had been added to the health bill in the final days before the vote and he had taken the time to read them before deciding which way to vote. Rigell had another theory: that Nye had waited until enough Democrats were prepared to vote yes before he decided to vote no.

Rigell has made several statements lately to the effect that Nye is his only serious obstacle to being elected, not feeling that Golden has enough support to overcome the two major party candidates. As such, Rigell seemed all too eager to go on the attack against the Congressman, hitting him on nearly every question, even as he tried to outline his own proposals for how Congress and the country should move forward. At times, it seemed as if he took the Congressman's votes personally. That isn't necessarily a bad thing for a citizen to do, since they do affect us personally; but it's not always the best route for a candidate to take.

Golden, while rarely missing a chance to criticize Nye's record, of course also took the occasional shot at Rigell, pointing out that neither candidate had as long of a record in public service as his own and that both would be forced to look through "the lens" of their own political party. He struck a populous tone throughout the evening, calling for the FairTax, an "all of the above" energy policy, and for securing the border against illegal immigrants (a position that all three candidates shared). Though he may personally believe in each of these policies, the rhetoric felt a little forced coming through his lips (which only means he's not that much of a public speaker, of course, and doesn't say much about his abilities).

The differences between the candidates was perhaps most apparent in their positions on the health insurance reform law (Obamacare). While all three oppose it, they each had different proposals for how to abolish or amend it. Golden, the populist independent, supported immediate repeal of the law. Rigell, the pragmatic if passionate businessman, points out that a repeal would likely face a presidential veto. He instead supports the idea of the next Congress simply refusing to fund the initiatives in Obamacare, reminding voters that the Legislative Branch controls the budget. Nye, showing a little more understanding of the process than the others due to his time in the House, called for use of the amendment process, which he has already used successfully to amend both Obamacare and other issues. He pledged to continue to use it in the future, particularly with regards to the mandates in Obamacare.

I was offered stickers and information on each of the candidates before the debate began, and I told the people giving them to me that I would wait until after the debate before wearing anyone's sticker. While there are things I admire about each candidate, such as Golden's record, Nye's bipartisanship, and Rigell's fierce advocacy of the free market, I just couldn't bring myself to pledge my support to anyone in advance. Even now, after watching them debate and seeing them interact with each other and the audience, I can't quite decide. Characterwise, I felt Nye won the night, since he never had an unkind or even critical word to say about either of his opponents and had instead a series of measured, policy-based answers to each question. Golden and Rigell, though, while actually agreeing with much of Nye had to say, still "ganged up" on him when they could.

Yes, a candidate is supposed to draw differences between himself and his opponent. After all, if you think he's doing a good job, then why run against him? But I've seen plenty of successful campaigns, including Bob McDonnell's campaign for governor last year, that employed virtually no negativity at all. While I appreciate the zeal Rigell and Golden displayed for their positions, I was more impressed by Nye's restraint. After all, there are plenty of things he could have used to hammer both of them, as well.

There are still two whole months before the election. I'll keep my eyes open for chances to see the candidates in action (and in person) again. I hope you all do the same, wherever you are and whoever your candidates happen to be.

Free Exchange joins the free market (just in time for the free elections)

2010-08-10T16:29:00.004-04:00

There's nothing more American than capitalism; except, of course, the flag, the Constitution, freedom, justice, and possibly apple pie. But I digress.

Anyway, Free Exchange is now selling a range of items, from clothing to bumper stickers, all featuring little snippets of wisdom from yours truly. The election season is fast reaching its climax, with most primaries completed and most general election ballots set. There will be many candidates, at least two from each Congressional district and many more for gubernatorial and senatorial campaigns across the country, each with their own logo, slogan, and/or brand to offer, many of which will sound exactly the same.

Free Exchange would like to offer an alternative this year: rather than voting for the candidates, vote for the issues. The product line includes many items which you can use to indicate your decision to do just that. And for those of you who don't intend to vote because you've had enough of politics, we have products to remind you that it's not about politics; it's about the issues.

Feel free to visit the online store, hosted by Zazzle.com, for some no-nonsense campaign gear this election season (more items being added each week).

Make a personalized gift at Zazzle.

Throwing more money at the mortgage problem?

2010-08-05T14:04:00.013-04:00

There are rumors (and only rumors at this point, mind you) that President Obama may order federally-controlled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to blanketly forgive debt owed by millions of Americans. Let me tell you why this could be a terrible idea.

How familiar are you with physics? Physics tells us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but only altered or transfered. That's why when you burn something you get smoke and ashes.

The same principle applies to debt, unfortunately. We learned this two years ago when all of the so-called "toxic assets" (the debt owed by all the homeowners who bought homes they couldn't afford with the help of sub-prime loans) started making their way up the mortgage food chain. Every lender who was pressured by the federal government into loaning money to people whom they knew couldn't repay (for the sake of "everyone owning a home") eventually had to deal with the fall off in revenue that comes from throwing your money out a window. The lenders in turn soon couldn't pay off their own debt, which was bought by even larger banks and lenders up the ladder until it eventually reached Fannie and Freddie, which is what lead to the TARP program of '08 (leaving an unmistakable trail of smoke and ashes in its wake).

Now, where did all those "troubled assets" go at that point? Right onto the taxpayers' backs. We're now saddled with paying off all that debt that began to accrue when the government originally told banks and lenders to ignore the fact that their customers likely would never be able to pay off their debt. Now, the government is about to do it again (reportedly). Fannie and Freddie are practically owned by the government, which is why the President feels he can order them to do this and that. However, the debt he wants them to "forgive" won't just disappear; it'll return to sit right back on our shoulders once again.

Aside from shifting "toxic" debt around like leaves on the lawn being a bad (and impractical) idea, what is the point in "forgiving" debt? It's a bailout for the little guy, of course; the one "main street" has been seeking ever since Wall Street got theirs. But if Wall Street didn't deserve one (remember all those cries of "Hey, it's their own fault for mismanaging their finances in the first place"), then why do people who bought houses they couldn't afford deserve one?

What's the alternative, you ask? First is the government recognizing the mistakes it has made, namely in sponsoring enterprises such as Fannie and Freddie and in pressuring lenders to provide subprime mortgages. To regain credibility with the American people (almost impossible to do in any election year), the federal government, President Obama in particular, needs to say "the buck stops here"; which, not incidentally, is where the toxic assets were "supposed" to have stopped.

Second, the government needs to divest itself of its ownership/stewardship of and finanical stake in private sector entities and enterprises; not just Fannie and Freddie, but also of General Motors and any other private company that may have received public funds. It must further close its doors to any and all businesses that may seek a "bailout" in the future.

Noted financial and policy experts Donald Marron and Phillip Swagel last May proposed several measures for "ensuring liquidity for housing [while addressing] the critical need to protect taxpayers and the financial system from the systemic risks posed" by the model the government uses in the case of entities like Fannie and Freddie. Regulation and backing for mortgage finances would still exist, but it would gradually phase out federal involvement in the operation of the companies, making them completely private enterprises subject to free market competition. I encourage anyone to read their proposal in its entirety.

Now, what does that mean for all those currently saddled with more housing debt than their homes are worth? Shouldn't they still receive aid? Yes; but not a "bailout". Provisions should be made to rehabilitate their finances and reduce their debt, but the argument that the 80% homeowners who aren't "under water" should foot the bill for the 20% who are runs completely contrary to both Democrat and Republican philosophies. After all, haven't Democrats spent the last year arguing that those with health insurance shouldn't have to cover emergency room costs for those without it? And isn't the same argument used by Republicans to show that taxpayers shouldn't have to fund universal healthcare coverage for those who can't afford to purchase it? It's a bit of a paradox, I know, but that's politics for you.

This whole situation began when the government started telling banks and lenders how to do business; let's not have it continue with that.

Update 08 August 2010:

Well, it remains a rumor (for now). The Treasury Department insists they're not considering what could be called a massive redistribution of wealth in the name of "forgiveness".

I used to have a friend who would always ask me for a couple of bucks so she could get something to eat, and she would always promise to pay me back. I always told her that it wasn’t necessary, since it was just a couple of bucks. Over time, though, it started to add up. One day, we learned that a hurricane was coming, and she needed some “real money” so she and her friend could leave town until it all blew over, so to speak. I gave her forty bucks, but I told her this wasn’t like the other times, and that until she paid back the forty bucks, I wouldn’t give her any more money, no matter how little. She never paid back the forty bucks, and I never gave her any more.

Governments have a responsibility to not waste taxpayer money. Every penny they spend, they spend in our name, and it is all supposed to benefit the country and its citizens. With welfare, President Clinton worked with Congress to ensure that people on welfare would someday return to the workforce, which would benefit all of us in the long run. That’s an example of responsible stewardship of taxpayer money. The TARP program is supposed to be another, although it still hasn’t been repaid and the government has accepted stock in some banks and businesses in lieu of repayment.

As far as mortgage “bailouts”, that’s simply complete irresponsibility. I would never have been able to “make” my friend repay the forty bucks; all I could do was what I said, to never give her anything else. The government, on the other hand, continues to give (our money) to people who will never be made to repay. These people received loans they would never be able to repay, bought homes they could never afford, all with the government's approval and over the business community's objections, and now that the margin call has been issued, so to speak, it seems that the government's solution is to let the lenders take it on the chin (again); which means, since the government is the one financially backing these lenders, we're the ones who take it on the chin (again).

I certainly hope this just remains a rumor.

Senator Leahy's buyer's remorse

2010-08-03T14:39:00.002-04:00

Senator Patrick Leahy is troubled by a provision in the new financial reform bill that was just passed by Congress. An exemption from the Freedom of Information Act, what the senator describes as "our nation's premier open government law", would keep American citizens from checking up on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as it moves forward under the new law. He's quick to point out that the provision was "originally drafted in the House", and that he wants the SEC to "narrowly interpret" the new exemption.

I won't get into the specifics of the new law or its implications for America; many others have done and will do so themselves, and in much greater depth and detail than I could. The purpose of this post is to highlight the buyer's remorse that even men as accomplished and staunch as Sen. Leahy feel as they continue in the manner and courses they set for themselves. This Congress, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid at the head, has enacted practices that are not only contrary to the country's best interests, but also to their own guidelines. Bills that are massive in both size and scope are literally rushed through both houses of Congress without time for proper review on anyone's part.

It began (at least in the current Congress) with the stimulus bill that became law within a day of the final language being drafted. That final language allowed embarrassingly huge corporate bonuses to be paid (at the taxpayers' expense) despite the failures on the part of the executives receiving them. Congress was so red-faced they tried to impose a brand-new tax on those bonuses (in possible violation of ex post facto laws) to cover for the fact that they allowed them in the first place.

Now, one of the leading Democrats in the Senate unwittingly voted to allow a major regulatory agency to operate outside the view of the American public. Why? Because, again, he didn't read the final bill before he voted. He subtly tries to shift the blame to the House of Representatives for changing the language before the final vote; but as a senator, it is still his own responsibility to know what is included in a bill before voting on it.

He's very sorry about it, too. He thinks immediate action should be taken. What's his solution? To draft new legislation that would revoke the exemption? No; it's to trust the SEC to not abuse its new power. It's to "work with the Obama administration and others in Congress" to make sure the SEC still has to tell us what its doing while it holds the future of our economy in its hands. Well, good luck with that, Senator. Maybe next time, you'll read the bill before you vote; but I doubt it.

Free Exchange on Twitter

2010-07-30T14:49:00.001-04:00

You can now join A Free Exchange of Ideas on Twitter, arguably the freest (is that a word?) exchange of ideas in history.

Longer hours or better schools?

2010-07-28T12:42:00.003-04:00

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan thinks they're synonymous.

I wrote last year about the Obama administration's vision for improving our public schools. While the success of the president's Race to the Top program is difficult to rate at this point, his top school official isn't. Speaking at the National Press Club this week, he reiterated his call for extending the school year. The whole argument goes something like this: we instituted summer vacation in a time when most of the country was still farmers and students needed the time off to work in their family fields, but that's not the case anymore. "I think schools should be open 12, 13, 14 hours a day, seven days a week, 11-12 months of the year," he says. "If you practice basketball five times a week, you're gonna be better than the people who practice three times a week."

I've posted before about the erroneous nature of that argument. Interestingly, I quoted a basketball player in that post, Michael Jordan, who said of longer practice days that "you can practice shooting eight hours a day, but if your technique is wrong, then all you become is very good at shooting the wrong way." Fundamentals, Mr. Jordan instructs us, are what lifts the quality of our efforts, not just how much time we devote to them. Sitting a student down from 8 in the morning to 8 in the evening every day of the year isn't going to make him learn; unless you want him to learn to hate school, that is.

To be fair, Sec. Duncan doesn't just want "more of the same". He wants to fix the problems with the schools themselves, to cure overcrowding and insufficient learning resources. He thinks schools should be more along the lines of community centers, with athletic and teaching facilities available to the general public. It's certainly an intriguing idea, and one that could create a greater sense of investment on the community's part. However, it's not necessarily practical.

Neither is a longer school year. Yes, fewer children are "working in the fields" these days, but that doesn't mean they can't make good use of their summer months. Most children, teenagers at least, find other work to do. They get jobs at restaurants, retail stores, and other places that enjoy a hiring boom during the summer. This teaches them practical finances and work skills that they can't gain in a classroom. It teaches them responsibility and hard work, and provides them with other opportunities that wouldn't be available to them if school was instituted year-round.

Also, it provides a much needed break from school. Academics are absolutely important, but as anyone who's been to school can tell you, at some point studying becomes counterproductive. Everyone takes a break, whether from school or work. Even religious leaders take sabbaticals every now and then. Vacations are good for the soul.

Which brings up my next objection: a longer school week infringes upon the free practice of religion, which is guaranteed in the First Amendment. Christians go to church on Sundays, Jews go to synagogues on Saturdays, etc. Eliminating the weekend forces not only students to interrupt their religious attendance, but it puts pious adults in the position of doing so, as well. Many teachers across the country are members of one religion or another, and the sacred day of rest, the Sabbath from which the term "sabbatical" was formed, is just that: sacred.

I believe in school reform and education reform. I know there are many schools, students, and communities that are falling far behind the "accepted" standards and need help improving. Extending school hours isn't the answer, though. I mentioned fundamentals earlier, and in my previous post. They include better recruiting and training of teachers, adequate and up-to-date teaching materials, proper teaching facilities, and strong community involvement. None of those fundamentals are served by having school all the time. The money it would take just to keep the doors open all day, all week, and all year would be much better spent rebuilding decrepit buildings, printing enough textbooks for each student to use, and paying teachers salaries commensurate with the job they do and the responsibility they have. Maybe all that won't work; but it's certainly worth trying before we tell every child in this country they'll only be allowed to go home when it's time to sleep.

The Tea Party moves into a new House

2010-07-22T14:27:00.004-04:00

In just under a year and a half, the Tea Party has gone from an underreported national movement to an undeniable political force. Thousands of rallies held in every state of the union have testified to the movement's popularity, and the nominations of candidates such as Rand Paul in Kentucky and Marco Rubio in Florida testify to its influence.

And now, the New York Times reports that the House of Representatives has approved an official Tea Party Caucus, with Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota (herself a Tea Party favorite) as Chairwoman. The Caucus has 28 members, so far all Republican, though there have been reports that some Democrats have shown interest in joining.

Many have wondered about the future of the movement, its direction and organization. A formal national Tea Party that would exist as a real alternative to the two major political parties has been and is on the minds of many Americans, both inside and outside the movement. Having an official caucus in the House would seem to suggest a certain amount of ambition on behalf of the movement's members. But Chairwoman Bachmann insists the caucus is there for one reason: "to listen to the concerns of the Tea Party." It is not there to be a mouthpiece for the Party or to preempt its message or momentum in any way, and the members of the caucus are not to be seen as "leaders" of the Tea Party. All that may be true; but signing up as a member of this caucus can certainly have significant political ramifications, as evidenced by the fact that the top two Republicans in the House, John Boehner and Eric Cantor, have yet to join.

The Tea Party has always striven for one thing: authenticity. Though there are a number of Democrats and Independents in the movement, and events are typically headlined by "minority" speakers such as Herman Cain and Bishop E. W. Jackson, the Tea Party has been denounced by its opponents from the beginning as fake, ignorant, partisan, racist, and even unpatriotic. Nothing could be farther from the truth. But with every step forward the movement takes, the opposition grows. I can almost see the talking points this new caucus could inspire, especially as regards the Party's goals and ambitions. Will having an official "ear" on the Hill do more harm than good? Time will tell. At the very least, no one on either side of the aisle can say the movement will disappear any time soon.

Happy Independence Day, America

2010-07-04T15:53:00.000-04:00

Virginia: a model for both fiscal responsibility and true bipartisanship

2010-06-29T15:06:00.002-04:00

"This is a Virginia success story. Promoting fiscal discipline, strengthening free enterprise and bringing new ideas and entrepreneurship to government are the keys to our future economic vitality as a state and as a nation."

Those words, written by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, sum up the effort by both parties in the commonwealth to reach a plan for economic stability in the years ahead. While the federal government still struggles with the woes it says it inherited from the previous administration (and to work with the "opposition" party), Virginia lawmakers and executives of all political persuasions have demonstrated to the country and the world that we don't have to raise taxes, increase spending, or demonize one another to create and achieve solutions that work for everyone.

Read the full article here. And tell us what you think of Virginia's efforts to fight recession versus Washington's on our Facebook Discussion Board.

Facebook Page

2010-06-03T20:01:00.002-04:00

Free Exchange now has a page on Facebook. Different than the Networked Blogs link, this page will have my posts as well as links to news stories and others' blogs that I don't take the time to include on this blog. I write opinion pieces here; I'm not a reporter. There are plenty of places to get the news, and I will include links to them on my Facebook page. There as here, feel free to share your thoughts and opinions (respectfully).

The Beginning of a Solution (Part III)

2010-05-28T18:41:00.004-04:00

There's (at least) one more thing we need to do: we need to stop dividing Congress (and state legislatures) into majority and minority parties.

The soul selects her own society (according to Emily Dickinson, at least), so no matter how the law is written or what is mandated, legislators of like minds will seek each other out. Consider Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama, a conservative Democrat who switched parties last December. Some say it was to preserve his chances of reelection in a right-leaning district, a la Arlen Specter; but others say he was simply going the way of many others in Alabama who have switched from Democrat to Republican over the years. As I mentioned in my two previous posts, there are dangers to switching parties and to moderate candidates participating in primaries. Rep. Griffith has a tough contest before he can run for reelection as a Republican. But, considering his views on certain issues and his opposition to the president, if voters hadn't known he had once been a Democrat, would they have been able to tell?

Maybe we can't keep the pundits from "keeping score", noting how many Democrats vote for Republican initiatives and vice versa; maybe we can't replace the primary and caucus system with a complete write-in system that would allow candidates to run without having to declare (or even hold) party affiliation; and maybe we can't all just "get along"; but we can remove the federal government's seal of approval on this centuries-old congressional civil war. Leaving the current system in place perpetuates the "us versus them" mentality, and even legitimizes it. It feeds the notion that, as one West Wing character put it, "being in power means everyone else can take a seat for four years".

That line, "everyone else", actually reminds us that there are more than just Republicans and Democrats in Congress (and in the country). If we stop dividing Congress into a majority and a minority, then not only do we combat the internecine warfare between the major parties, but we also acknowledge the presence of other parties, and of legislators who don't belong to parties. That could be even more important than stopping the bickering between the "top two".

I watched a movie recently that showed a senator chairing a hearing on the news as part of the plot. When the graphic with his name came onscreen, it didn't show the R, D, or I at the end of his name indicating what party he represented. While a future of not having lawmakers and executives identified by their party is a private dream of mine, right now it's simply unrealistic. Pundits love to remind you which senator belongs to which party, especially when he's doing something that his party doesn't like. It's "good television". Maybe that's the problem. We're a nation of theatergoers. While there are people willing to sit through a report on the latest floor vote, the average viewer needs an angle, a bit of drama, something to make it more exciting. That's why you'll see more grandstanding on C-SPAN lately (assuming you watch C-SPAN, that is).

Partisanism is the biggest problem with politics today. It's hardly a metaphor to say that Congress has drawn battle lines, with the two sides choosing leaders. Whichever side has the most members decides who heads the committees, which bills and amendments are considered, and when the votes are taken. Should the "winning" side have all the privileges? You may think so; but this is not a game, no matter how gleefully we may watch the other side fall. Leadership shouldn't be awarded to a particular representative just because the opposition didn't have enough good candidates in other parts of the country. And then there are the independent members of Congress who must depend on the largesse of the two major parties to earn a leadership position. This is not democracy in action.

Suppose, instead, we had a Congress without majority or minority leaders, where the committees weren't divided into ranks, and where the votes weren't tallied and reported as a "victory or defeat" for one side or the other. I wrote recently about racism, and how the government unwittingly perpetuates by requiring we list our race on the official Census. The government is its own entity, its own personality. It doesn't see race the way we do; it doesn't recognize it at all. It recognizes only one type of American: the free one. Forcing the government to acknowledge another type, any other type, is wrong. That principle is just as true for partisanism as it is for racism.

I've posted twice before about George Washington's warning to the nation about what would happen if political parties were allowed to rise in this country. He said it would lead to deep divisions, to "revenge ... dissension ... [and a form of] frightful despotism" as the parties traded their time in power with each other. We shouldn't have a legislature divided. Some say division is good, calling it "competition" or "opposition". With 535 members, I think Congress has enough competition and opposition. And, as I said before, representatives and senators will seek out likeminded colleagues regardless of the official divisions. It shouldn't be official, though. Congress is a battleground; it shouldn't be. The only war our leaders should wage should be for the future of the country, and not for the future of their party.

The Beginning of a Solution (Part II)

2010-05-18T13:03:00.006-04:00

Today is as close to Super Tuesday as it gets in a non-presidential election year. There are at least three competitive U.S. Senate races and one House race that will offer portents about the future of both major parties. One race, the special election to fill the House seat vacated by the death of John Murtha of Pennsylvania earlier this year, will be definitively decided today, with a successor chosen and sent to Washington. The Senate races are a little murkier, with primary fights likely to decide the fate of two iconic Senators.

Primaries, as I noted in my last post, are largely unfair to the candidates themselves. Primary voters tend to be more partisan (and less forgiving) than general election voters, which gives the advantage to the most partisan (and least compromising) candidates. A moderate has hardly a chance of surviving, unless he or she is a sterling candidate.

But let's take a look at some of these candidates. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania was, if I'm not mistaken, a Democrat, originally. He was recruited by President Ronald Reagan into the "big tent" GOP of the late 70's and early 80's, and remained a Republican for about thirty years. Last year, when his moderate and even liberal stances on some issues drew a primary challenger, Sen. Specter defected from the Republican Party and became a Democrat. Pundits across the mainstream media portrayed this as a sign that there was no room for moderates in the GOP. (I wonder if they'll say the same about the Democratic Party if Rep. Joe Sestak defeats Sen. Specter for the nomination today.)

Can a man like Sen. Specter win in today's political climate? What about a woman like Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas? She also faces tough opposition from both sides, with Lt. Gov. Bill Halter challenging her liberal credentials. She needs not only to defeat him in the primary, but to secure a clear majority, or she will have to face him again in a runoff election next month. At the very most, the pounding she's taking from her opponent on the Left will help her seem more centrist when she faces her Republican opponent in the general (assuming she gets there).

One sitting senator who has already been eliminated from consideration is Bob Bennett of Utah, who was ousted at a GOP convention "dominated" by Tea Party activists. Though he has represented Utah for almost two decades in the Senate, he is now barred from either winning the June 22 primary or running as an independent (though a write-in campaign is still a possibility). The Republican nomination there will go to either businessman Tim Bridgewater or lawyer Mike Lee.

I won't try to defend any of these senators, or their records. I mention them to illustrate how the winners of elections past can easily become the losers of today's primaries. What good does a primary do if its main effect is to eliminate candidates who have already demonstrated their appeal to the majority of voters? If Utah, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania have already sent these people to Washington multiple times, then why should a few thousand people hold the power to keep them from even running again? I've attended Tea Parties myself, and I believe in the movement. It's important for ordinary citizens to involve themselves in government and even in the "system"; but ordinary citizens also need options if they're to have true democracy. These candidates, sitting senators all, deserve the chance to take their case to their states; and the states deserve the opportunity to hear that case.

What's the solution, then? To let everyone on the ballot? That way lies chaos. There must be order, after all; but there also must be fairness. I believe I have a solution.

There's one more contest today that I'd like to mention. My friend Pia Varma is another victim of a corrupted system. She is running for Congress as a Republican in Pennsylvania against Rep. Bob Brady. Due to some errors made by the GOP establishment in her district and after an unsuccessful court battle to try resolving those errors, she was ejected from the ballot. Her recourse now is a write-in campaign. If she gets a thousand votes today from members of the district, then she'll remain on the general election ballot.

That is the solution, I feel. Rather than having a primary, caucus, or convention to decide which candidates will be "allowed" to run for office, just let the people decide. Eliminate the primary system, which practically fosters pandering and partisan influence, and replace it with a complete write-in system. Why shouldn't the candidates or their surrogates have to go door-to-door, meeting their prospective constituents, asking directly for their votes? If they can convince enough voters to support their candidacy, then they'll be on the general ballot.

This may seem like another version of the primary system, which also requires a candidate to collect signatures; but unlike the primaries, there is no one "winner" for each party or ideology. Having one conservative in the race wouldn't preclude another. Similarly, you could have more than one liberal candidate, and any number of moderates. One person collecting enough signatures would mean simply moving on to the general election; it wouldn't mean that you had "beaten" anyone.

Also, you won't have to limit yourself to "primary voters". You won't have to declare what your party is, or even join one. You would speak directly to the voters at rallies, townhalls, and their front doors, and tell them exactly what you plan to do for them and why you are a better candidate than all the others. You could speak to Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, even Communists if you wanted, and you would be armed only with your plans for the city, district, state, and/or country. They would have to judge you based on your ideas and your principles, rather than the letter next to your name.

That leads me to the second part of my solution. Without the primaries, caucuses, or conventions, there would be no more "official" party candidates. The general election ballot wouldn't be ordered by the major party candidates first and the independent candidates (if there are any) next. No party identifications would be placed on the ballot. Voters would go to the booths knowing only what you have told them on the campaign trail. They couldn't go expecting simply to check whichever candidate had a (D) or an (R) next to his name; they would need to pay attention to what you have said to know whether they agree with you.

Obviously, this wouldn't change current party affiliations, or anyone's memory. People would still remember that Blanche Lincoln was a Democrat and Bob Bennett was a Republican; but at least there would be no more Arlen Specters jumping parties. This way, a candidate wouldn't worry about losing voters on the Right, on the Left, or in the Middle. He could simply go to another area and ask for support. If he failed to find it, then he wouldn't be able to run again. That is true democracy.

Let's go a bit further in this. I mentioned the presidential primary system in my last post, and how if a candidate loses a few early primaries, then he can't compete in later ones. If the primary system were replaced with a write-in system, though, then a candidate wouldn't need to stop campaigning just because one or two states rejected him. He could even afford to skip those states entirely. What if we had a system where, if a presidential candidate collects a certain number of signatures from a particular state, then he's on that state's ballot? And if he is on the ballot of, say, three-fifths of the states, then he's on the entire general ballot? It still eliminates the "lesser" candidates, but it also cuts down on partisanism. It even allows the people who don't join political parties (and are therefore banned from certain states' primary systems) to have a voice in who the eventual candidates will be.

Now, where does this all leave the DNC, the RNC, and other national parties? Right where they are now. National parties will still be allowed to support and endorse whichever candidates they want, and candidates can still seek their endorsement. After all, to win an election, you still need money and manpower, and the national parties have both. On the other hand, as I pointed out in my last post, it's becoming easier to run your own campaign, these days. People are donating directly to candidates, volunteering on their own, and organizing with hardly any encouragement at all. This sort of atmosphere is practically ideal for a full-fledged write-in candidate who has never joined a political party or sought its endorsement. We have the opportunity to cultivate a whole new generation of political leaders that aren't bound by partisanism, who can operate wholly independent of "the establishment". That generation may not come tomorrow, this November, in 2012, or even in our lifetime; but isn't it a goal for which we should all work? Isn't that a solution we should all seek to implement?

The Beginning of a Solution (Part I)

2010-05-03T11:49:00.004-04:00

So, Governor Charlie Crist is running as an independent candidate in this year's Florida Senate race. Why? Because he wants to be a senator and he doesn't feel he can win the Republican nomination against former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio. He's probably right.

Primaries have always seemed ... counterproductive to me. You have a candidate like Gov. Crist (or John McCain, for that matter) who has been a moderate on many issues throughout his career, but when he decides to seek another, perhaps higher, office, he needs to convince members of his own party that he's not so "middle of the road" before they'll nominate him. He's not fooling anyone, of course, because your average primary voter has a long memory and tends to be unforgiving. Now, maybe you're like Sen. McCain and can secure the nomination anyway; or maybe you're like Crist and are forced to pursue an independent bid. Either way, whatever promises you made to the extremes of your party will haunt you in the general election when you try to appeal to more moderate voters.

What makes it worse is when you consider the presidential primary system, which forces a presidential candidate to campaign on a state-by-state or region-by-region basis. The old complaint, which I've made myself, is that Iowa and New Hampshire essentially have the power to choose who the major party nominees will be long before other states will even have the opportunity to meet most of the candidates. What's the solution? A rotating primary schedule that changes each election season? That still leaves the power to choose the nominees in the hands of a very few states; and it still doesn't solve the problem of candidates catering to primary voters and then veering to the center in the general election.

Even after the politicking and campaigning are over and you've elected a new state senator or district attorney or Congressman, the parties are still watching him. His own party is watching to ensure that he's representing their interests; the other parties are waiting for him to make a mistake, any mistake; and if he does something that either side doesn't like, then they stand ready to replace him, if they can.

I believe that most elected officials run for office because they want to help, to change things for the better; but before you can do anything, you must be elected. To be elected, you need to run through a labyrinth of legalities, get both your face and your message to the people who will be voting, convince them you're right, and hire a campaign staff that could number in the dozens, hundreds, or even thousands. All of this requires vast amounts of money, which political parties, PACs, and independently wealthy candidates can provide. How can a candidate survive without either their own fortune or the support of a major political party?

You're seeing the beginning of a solution in Florida. No, not with Gov. Crist; with his Republican opponent, Marco Rubio. How did Gov. Crist, one of the most popular governors in recent Florida history, with the endorsement of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee and millions of campaign dollars, go from a double-digit lead to a double-digit deficit in the primaries against a relatively unknown son of Cuban exiles with the taint of scandal hanging over him? What turned it around, so to speak?

For one thing, he's very charismatic. He's a good decade younger than Gov. Crist, and looks it, too. He's a savvy public speaker, and even being the son of immigrants works in his favor (Republicans, after all, are pro-legal immigration). The other thing, though, is that elections are getting cheaper. Airing a campaign message doesn't mean limiting yourself to television or even newsprint anymore. In the year since Rubio declared his candidacy, the online community has practically rallied around him. On Facebook alone, he has more than four times as many "fans" as Gov. Crist. Also, small donors have begun bypassing the RNC and are donating directly to candidates they prefer, which translates to more influence for the voters and less for the establishment. The influence of the Tea Party, of course, cannot be discounted, as Rubio's commitment to conservatism is more easily demonstrated than Crist's. He's no extremist, but the bridge isn't as far for him as it was for Crist.

To a lesser extent, President Obama did the same thing when he sought the Democratic nomination and captured the lion's share of small donors against the "establishment" candidate, Hillary Clinton. I say "to a lesser extent" because he had the patronage of some very high-profile individuals, such as Oprah Winfrey and the late Senator Ted Kennedy. Marco Rubio has also received some high-profile endorsements, but they've mostly come in the last couple of months, after his meteoric rise had already begun.

The average voter is increasingly bypassing "the process", as it were. Donating directly to candidates rather than their party, ignoring the conventional wisdom about who can and cannot win, focusing on the candidates and issues themselves, and not being afraid to stand at a rally and say "this is what I want from my leaders" all help to return power to its proper place in a democracy: with the people. Whatever we may think of them and their personal politics, we all owe a great deal to candidates like Barack Obama and Marco Rubio for not "playing along".

It's a beginning; but waiting until the "right candidate" enters the race isn't going to be enough. I'll discuss what more we can do in my next post.

What happened to the right to privacy?

2010-04-30T19:42:00.005-04:00

I thought it was bad when Congress passed, for the first time ever, a law that required Americans to purchase a particular good or service and the president signed it. I thought it was ridiculous when a lawmaker in California tried to ban toys in fast food kids' meals as a way to fight obesity. I was deeply troubled when I learned the president was in favor of a national database of DNA for arrested (whether they were guilty or innocent) individuals, as well as a national ID card. Can anyone see the irony in a president who thinks American citizens should have their "papers" on them, but that those who wouldn't even have them (i.e., illegal immigrants) shouldn't even be questioned about it?

Now, though, an assemblyman in New York wants to make the default answer to the question of whether you are an organ donor "yes". Forgive the expression, but this guy wants to take our very guts out of our bodies once we die unless we specifically opt out beforehand. I'm not squeamish, but it took even me a while to check the "yes" box next to the organ donor question on my driver's license. Why? Because it's my body, and I have every right to keep what I want. It is not the property of anyone but me, and least of all the state. I eventually marked yes, as I do believe in helping those who need it. On the other hand, I firmly believe the default position should be "no".

What two things do all these lawmakers and executives have in common? One, they've all come out in firm and vocal support of measures that violate at least some aspect of a fundamental right to privacy. After all, how we take care of our bodies, our children, and our finances are all extremely personal decisions. Two, they're all Democrats. I came a bit late to the party, so to speak, and I got my early political education on "The American President" and "The West Wing". Both featured Democrats as heroes fighting for the little guy, upholding personal liberty and the Constitution as well as the nebulous "right to privacy" that nobody could really define, but they all knew exactly what they were talking about when they mentioned it. Well, I guess they must have "known" that a right to privacy didn't include matters of personal health, raising our children without government interference, walking down the street without needing "papers", or a right to keep our organs inside our bodies without having to apply for it beforehand.

Support Shad Olson

2010-04-30T07:54:00.003-04:00

An Emmy Award-winning news anchor, whose reporting has been so objective that his viewers never even suspected his personal political views, was suspended recently for giving a speech at a Tea Party rally. He never implied his appearance was endorsed by his TV station or his employers; he merely spoke his mind.

In an age where free speech is attacked by the same people who a few years ago claimed that dissent was the highest form of patriotism, we all need to support Shad Olson and people like him whose jobs are threatened whenever they exercise their rights to have and convey their opinions.

Click here to join the Facebook group Support Shad Olson.

The Final (Media) Frontier

2010-04-19T01:56:00.006-04:00

When was the last time you curled up with a good book? I hear Glenn Beck, Dick Morris, Mitt Romney, and Karl Rove are all on the New York Times bestseller's list. Put the book down; let's talk newspapers, instead. Wall Street Journal does better than the NYT and the Washington Post. Eh, print is dead, right? What about radio? Air America officially went out of business months ago, while Rush Limbaugh just keeps growing more popular. But, who really listens to talk radio anymore? Television's where it's at, right? The top cable news shows are all on Fox News, where Bill O'Reilly has been the king of ratings for over eight years straight. Oh, forget it; there's nothing but garbage on the tube.

These are all "dinosaur media", anyway. The Internet is the most "reliable" news source, and it's the future of all media. And we all know who dominates the web, don't we? That's right; the Left. Howard Dean "pioneered" the online campaign when he ran for president in 2004, albeit unsuccessfully. His technique was improved upon, though, by the Obama team in 2008. Liberal blogs and websites like the Huffington Post and the Daily Kos have been around practically forever, in terms of Internet presence. Heck, Al Gore invented the Internet.

On the other hand, while it may take conservatives a while to catch up, we're never content with simply tying; pulling ahead is always the aim. Take Governor McDonnell's recent election victory in Virginia. Learning from President Obama's election, McDonnell spent a higher than normal percentage of his campaign funds garnering online support and purchasing online advertising. Senator Scott Brown spent even more in his own successful campaign in Massachusetts. The Tea Party movement has found the Internet to be invaluable for organizational purposes.

Technology, of course, is expanding in almost quantum leaps, these days; whoever can best utilize it will undoubtedly find greater success. Twitter, for example, is used by most as nothing more than a way to blather whatever they happen to think or do at any given moment. Some find more important uses for it. Members of Congress and their aides send out dozens of tweets a day. Republicans in Congress have more followers than their Democratic colleagues, though. Senator John McCain has the most followers by far, at around 106,000; and this was a man who, just a couple of years ago, admitted to having only a very limited understanding of computers. I guess you can teach an old dog new tricks.

Another example of a conservative politician making good use of technology is Governor Rick Perry. His home state of Texas is practically a haven of the tech industry, with its business-friendly environment drawing hubs for Facebook, the Austin-based Gowalla, and the South by Southwest Conference (SXSW). As conservative blogger Mary Katherine Ham writes in The Weekly Standard, "If you believe the conventional wisdom about Republicans and technology ... Perry should have no clue why Gowalla matters to Texas. But here he is, using a touch-screen smartphone to tell the community of Gowalla users he's 'checking in' at the Texas State Capitol."

Perhaps it's a lack of innovation, as the Left seems to argue, that has kept the Right from "pioneering" in information technology. Perhaps the paradigm shift of treating this new technology as just another form of the old was a slow adjustment for some of the "establishment" campaign chiefs, and it took a new generation of leaders on the Right before they could adapt. Personally, I think it has to do with the nature of conservatism itself. We like things how they are. We're realistic enough to accept that the world changes, for both good and ill; but all things considered, I know I for one am comfortable reading cloth-bound books with actual paper and ink, as opposed to e-readers. I didn't even start an official blog until just over a year ago.

But, with all entities, whether individuals, businesses, or political campaigns, success depends on adapting to new technology, new techniques and strategies. I believe that, just as with print, radio, and television, conservatives will prove to be formidable users of the Internet.

Update 30 April 2010:

Another example of a conservative making good use of online resources is Marco Rubio, now the de facto GOP nominee for the U.S. Senate in Florida. Without the support of rightwing bloggers, online fundraising, and of course the Tea Party, the Cuban former Speaker of Florida's legislature would have long ago been forced to abandon his bid, and "establishment candidate" Governor Charlie Crist would be the undisputed leader in the race. Now, in a Cinderella story the envy of any politician, Rubio is virtually on his way to Washington.

Update 30 July 2010:

It's official (for now, anyway). Conservatives are dominating the web. Technorati.com, which tracks blogs and ranks them by popularity, now shows Hot Air and The Corner (both of them conservative blogs) as the top two political blogs, with three more conservative blogs in the top ten. The Huffington Post, which used to hold the number one spot, has dropped to number five. Now, this is the Internet, and you can't really expect these numbers (or anything else) to remain constant; but with fewer than a hundred days left before the midterm elections, the influence of conservatives on the blogosphere is potentially more "game changing" than ever. And with the recent dual online ideological conventions of Netroots Nation and RightOnline, you can expect the Internet to become a fierce political battleground once again.

Tea Party Anniversary

2010-04-15T23:59:00.004-04:00

I'm not going to the trouble of scouring news archives to find all the negative press the Tea Party movement received at its inception. First, because some of it is too crass to repeat; and second, because there wasn't much coverage at first. There were protests in every state of the union. Over 800 cities and towns held rallies in what was the largest nonviolent protest of our generation, and yet only one network gave it any real news coverage (you guessed it: Fox News). Personally, I think the other networks were just hoping that if they ignored the protesters, then it would all just vanish.

It didn't, though; in fact, the movement proved to be quite the magnetic force. It's drawn from a broad range of demographics in the last year. Recently, CNN even reported that disaffected Democrats were also joining the Party (as if that had never happened before). While some myopically claim that the Tea Party is comprised entirely of white people, I've yet to attend a Tea Party protest that didn't have black people present and participating.

Take this most recent round of protesting. I attended a gathering in Town Point Park in Norfolk, VA. One of the most popular speakers present was Rhonda Kundrat, a conservative black woman, whose response to the "all white" claim was, "Hey, I'm right here!" Another black speaker at the event was Bishop E. W. Jackson of Exodus Faith Ministries. Like Mrs. Kundrat, he's faced a "different" type of hatred for joining the Tea Party movement than white people have. Though he left it implied, it's not hard to figure what "different word" his critics have for him. For everyone who says Tea Partiers are all (or mostly) racist, Bishop Jackson replies, "Mr. President, it's not that you're black; it's that you don't respect the red, white, and blue!"

Both speakers gave lists of personal intrusions liberal politicians have made in the last year, some of which I've blogged about already. Various local, state, and federal officials have tried to dictate how much salt we can use, what kinds of food we can eat, and most recently what doctors we can see and what kind of care we can receive. Steve Elliot of Grassfire Nation points out the list also includes control over what kind of cars and light bulbs and health insurance we can buy, and even, in some cases, how much money we can earn. These are the kind of issues Tea Partiers have sought to address (and correct).

Many personal freedom groups were in attendance. Both Chesapeake and Virginia Beach Taxpayer Alliances had speakers present. The Foundation for American Christian Education, Tidewater Libertarian Party, Virginia Campaign for Liberty, The 912 Project of Virginia, and Hampton Roads Tea Party also had booths and volunteers. Various candidates for city councils across Hampton Roads and for Virginia's Second Congressional District came to meet and mingle with the other Tea Partiers.

Beyond that, the crowd itself was rather large. Town Point Park is used for outdoor concerts, among other things, and it was practically full for the event. This wasn't a crowd of "typical" protesters, either. At one point, a speaker asked for a show of hands of who was at their first protest ever; far more hands were raised than not. Most were white, but there were plenty of blacks there, as well. They carried the usual signs: "Stop Big Government"; "Taxed Enough Already"; "FairTax, not VAT Tax"; and, "It's Not About Color; It's About Radical Policies". As you might expect, there weren't any signs in support of the president's or Congress' agendas.

Congressman Glenn Nye certainly didn't have many friends in the crowd. I had the opportunity to speak with a few of the candidates seeking to replace him in Congress. I asked Republicans Bert Mizusawa and Kenny Golden and representatives of other candidates how they would have voted differently than Nye, given that he's voted against several initiatives considered vital to the Democratic agenda. Both pointed out that Nye's committee votes allowed those initiatives to come to a floor vote, and therefore, passage. One area on which everyone I spoke to agreed was that Nye is the only candidate in November who might vote to keep Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. (The Republican primary will be held on June 8th, for those who intend to vote. Mr. Golden is running independently, while Mr. Mizusawa will face Ben Loyola, Ed Maulbeck, Scott Rigell, Jessica Sandlin, and Scott Taylor for the GOP nomination.)

These are the important issues for Tea Partiers, you see. We don't want a government that passes legislation against the will of the people. We don't want our hard-earned tax dollars funding initiatives that we don't support. And we don't want leaders who are dismissive of us, like Speaker Pelosi and even the president himself. While writing this blog, I came across an article that said President Obama was "amused" by all the protests. That is exactly the wrong attitude for a man who claims to speak for America to have, especially when that movement is growing to be more popular than he is. He's entitled to his own personal opinion, of course, but at the very least, this is an opinion that he should have kept to himself. As president, whether it's millions or even one American voicing a concern, he should at least react with respect. It's bad enough that ordinary citizens are trying to "demolish" free speech.

To be perfectly honest, I think some of them are still hoping we'll all just vanish. Even though it's been a year since the first round of Tea Parties, and even though so-called Tea Party candidates have outpaced their "establishment" competitors in many races, I think a great deal on the Left are hoping to wake up on Election Day to find it was all just a bad dream. That's why they feel they can be so dismissive of the movement. It's hard to blame them for this; after all, a liberal agenda has prevailed, so far, despite all the opposition. It may just be that it will take shifting the balance of power in Washington back to the Right before the rest of the country will take the Tea Party seriously.

In the meantime, though, we need to do far more than just vote. Congress is facing a record budget deficit this year, due in part to spending hundreds of billions of dollars at a time on stimulus bills, jobs and unemployment bills, and of course, health insurance reform; and that's assuming they even pass a budget this year. What can we do between now and November? A good start would be to contact every single representative we have in Washington, including the president himself, and reemphasize fiscal responsibility. Advocacy for sane and responsible stewardship is a year-round task. Fortunately, the Tea Party has shown that it can keep going for at least a year at a time.

Was their cause just? That depends on who you mean by "they."

2010-04-07T23:11:00.006-04:00

Governor Bob McDonnell has revived a practice that some of his predecessors had discontinued: he has declared April to be Confederate History Month in Virginia. As you might expect, the move has sparked an explosion of negative reactions.

Civil rights leaders were quick to decry the proclamation as "offensive". L. Douglas Wilder, a former governor of Virginia and the first black governor in U.S. history, said it was “very troubling to me and to many others, because it only presents one side of the story.” Kenneth C. Alexander, Chairman of the Virginia Legislative Black Caucus, went so far as to suggest that Governor McDonnell may favor slavery, saying he seemed "nostalgic" for that which "Virginia has worked hard to move beyond".

The governor defended his proclamation, reminding people that not every aspect of the Civil War was about slavery. His goal was to highlight those other issues that had been eclipsed by the main issue. With the 150th anniversary of the conflict next year, the move was also designed to promote tourism in Virginia. Wilder took exception, saying the governor's original proclamation made no mention of slavery at all, and that he hoped the governor would "see fit to revise what he has written". Governor McDonnell did, and now his proclamation includes a reminder of the evils of slavery, saying we "should reflect upon and learn from this painful part of our history."

I agree it was a mistake to not include this language from the beginning; but to say that we have nothing from those four years of history to celebrate is an almost equal mistake. Who truly understands the motivations of those who fought in what is called in the South "the War Between the States"? Did everyone in the South own slaves? Was every soldier in the Confederate Army fighting simply to keep their slaves? Did they all hate the North and Abraham Lincoln and liberty and justice for all?

Jefferson Davis was the President of the Confederate States of America, the only president in Confederate history. Before the secession, he was a member of the United States Army, fighting in the Mexican-American War. He was a Cabinet Secretary for President Franklin Pierce, and represented Mississippi in the United States Senate. Did he want to secede from the Union? No. He gave several speeches urging the preservation of the United States; but he also believed that States had the fundamental right to secede, so when Mississippi declared its intent to do so, he resigned from the U.S. Senate and returned to his home.

General Robert E. Lee is probably the most famous Confederate in history, but even he didn't want to see his country divided against itself. His popularity in the North led President Lincoln to offer him command of the entire Union Army. However, his home was in Virginia, his father having been Governor at one point. After the war, he aided in Reconstruction efforts, ensuring ex-Confederates wouldn't lose their right to vote.

To be sure, for many in the South, the war was over slavery; but that conflict cloaked a host of other issues, including one that is still very important to Southerners, the issue of States' rights. Southerners don't usually refer to it as the "Civil War". A civil war is a war fought by two factions within the same country, but Southerners don't consider the Confederacy to have been part of the same country. For many, "the War Between the States" was at least as much about the sovereignty of the individual states versus the power of the federal government as it was about slavery.

None of this is really the point, though. Governor McDonnell's proclamation originally called for an understanding of "the sacrifices of the Confederate leaders, soldiers, and citizens during the period of the Civil War". What were those sacrifices, exactly? When the leaders of the Southern States seceded, their citizens must have been torn, as Lee and Lincoln were torn, by their love for their brothers and sisters across the Mason-Dixon line. The North saw this not as secession, but as rebellion and moved to stem the tide. Once shots were fired on the Union Army at Fort Sumter, the course was set and America was at war.

Did people want to fight? I'm sure many of them did; but certainly, most would rather have lived in peace. The soldiers of the Confederate Army left their homes and families to risk their lives in battle against a numerically and technologically superior foe; a foe composed, in some small measure, of their former friends and families. In just one year, soldiers from Virginia, the Carolinas, and other locations across the South were fighting against soldiers they had once called their countrymen. Can you imagine how it would feel to turn your guns on men and boys who had once been your fellow Americans? Can you imagine how it would feel to have their guns turned on you?

Whether you call it the Civil War, the War Between the States, or some other name, it must be said that this was one of the worst periods in our country's history. The cause was certainly not just; but the soldiers on both sides no doubt fought with courage, and even honor. Not everyone in the South owned slaves, just as not everyone in the North was praiseworthy. For what it took from those men and boys and their families, I think it deserves a special recognition.

I think of the fight in South Carolina a few years back over whether to fly the Confederate Battle Flag over the statehouse and the debate it stirred on what it meant to be "Southern". To some, it means racism, but to most, it means hospitality, sipping sweet tea on a porch in the late afternoon, common courtesy and chivalry, honoring family history, religious adherence, and beautiful women with charming accents. I'd encourage everyone to read Tony Horwitz's "Confederates in the Attic", a sometimes quirky but always insightful review of what a Southern heritage truly means; and I'd encourage everyone to find it in their hearts to look back on this dark moment in our past with a forgiving eye for those who did the best they could on both sides.

Today, it's kids' meals ...

2010-03-24T15:57:00.002-04:00

Still think politics doesn't affect you? How about the lawmaker who's trying to ban toys in fast food kids' meals?

Happy Meal's Frown: Kids' Meal Toy Ban - ABC News

It's only happening in Santa Clara, CA (for now), but with the assemblyman in New York City who's trying to ban salt in restaurants (that's all types of salt, from the kitchen to the table salt, and in all restaurants, not just fast food ones), it's another example of how the government wants to reach in and control every aspect of your life, including what you eat; and if you don't do anything about it, then they will.

Now, before you think this is just another power grab, there is actually a point to this law. They're trying to combat childhood obesity, which is a serious problem in this country and can lead to debilitating health conditions later in life. Banning toys in restaurants, though? Let's set aside the practical issues (including whether or not it would actually work) and get down to some serious personal responsibility issues, here. As the woman in the accompanying video says, combatting obesity begins in the home. It's not like three and four year-olds are driving themselves to MacDonald's and Wendy's to buy these meals; and it's not the meals that are keeping them from being active and working off the extra carbs and calories. On the other hand, no one, least of all myself, wants to tell parents how to raise their children.

Or do they? This kind of interventionist activism on the part of political leaders is hardly a step removed from regulating what types of food, toys, clothes, and other items parents can buy for their children. Do you think I'm being paranoid? We've got a lawmaker trying to ban toys in kids' meals!

I had someone tell me today that "we've tried, to varying degrees, to allow people to govern themselves and make decisions for themselves, and people have shown their incompetence at making smart decisions"; to which, I replied: "Making decisions 'for' people because they're not 'smart enough' has been used to justify the worst kinds of oppression". This is America. There's no right more fundamental than our right of self-determination.

Oddly enough, no matter how many times I think of the 'personal responsibility' debate, my mind always returns to a line from "Ghostbusters II", when the mayor is warned that all the bad feelings in New York City are leading to an apocalyptic event. The mayor responds: "What do you want me to do? Go on television and tell seven million people to be nice to each other? Being miserable and treating other people like dirt is every New Yorker's God-given right!" That's the standard of freedom, believe it or not; we're free to succeed, but we're also free to fail. Cases like the toy ban and the salt ban are examples of the government refusing to allow us the freedom to fail.

What's the next step? Perhaps we should ban video games. After all, that's time children could spend running and playing outside. Television? What could possibly be on the tube that's as important as good health? It just keeps kids from reading and doing their homework, anyway, and aren't our test scores low enough already? What about the Internet? With all the predators and dangerous (and subversive) material online, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest to ban anyone from logging on who's under the age of ... oh, let's say 21? We've banned marijuana in this country already, so I guess the next step is to ban alcohol and tobacco, since they're just as bad for you. And yes, requiring people to purchase health insurance is part of that mentality.

I don't want to sound (too) dramatic, but today, it's kids' meals, tomorrow it's democracy. If we truly need the government to tell us how to live our lives, then that's one step removed from telling us how to vote. After all, most people don't even exercise that right; they'll never even miss it.

Update 11 May 2010:

Okay, it's spreading from California to the federal government, now. The Task Force on Childhood Obesity recommends the "intimidation first, and if that doesn't work, then forced compliance" approach. They want the government to dictate what foods can be marketed to children, as well as how and how often they should be marketed. If all that doesn't work, then they want the government to actually dictate to supermarkets what kind of displays can be used for "junk food". Also, they want to go into school cafeterias and restaurants to change what they serve to children and how they serve it. In the name of "combatting childhood obesity", this "task force" is proposing a massive expansion of government powers over schools, advertisers, television networks, supermarkets, restaurants, and especially the food manufacturers.

Did I say spreading? I meant "metastasizing".

The things that divide us ...

2010-03-22T12:42:00.007-04:00

An insurance reform bill (not a healthcare reform bill) is finally ready for the president's signature. Last night, the House of Representatives passed the Senate's version of health insurance reform, fighting for every vote they could get. Does it seem strange to anyone else that Congress needs to fight for votes? People talk about obstructionist Republicans and all the "roadblocks" they place in the way of reform, but the truth is much more ... complicated.

First, there are far more Democrats in Congress than there are Republicans. I don't think I actually need to remind anyone of that, but the way some pundits and bloggers talk and write, you'd think right-wingers were the only ones who had problems with the bill last night. I heard a guest, I can't remember his name, on CNN say this vote had demonstrated a "coalition" had formed. The only problem I have with that statement is he meant a coalition had formed in support of the bill, when in reality, the coalition had formed in opposition to it. 34 Democrats joined every Republican in the House in voting "no". Mere hours before the vote was held, the number of Democrats opposed to the bill was much higher, and it was only after many meetings with and many concessions from President Obama and Speaker Pelosi that the number of "yes" votes outnumbered the "no" votes.

And yet, both the president and the speaker spoke about how they were able to transcend politics and partisanism. The evidence is against them, unfortunately. I can't recall a single instance in 2009 of any high-level meeting between the president and Republican leaders in Congress on the subject of insurance reform. Perhaps it's a coincidence, but the only meetings I can remember them having on this issue were after Scott Brown was elected Senator in Massachusetts.

Since that election, the public has received an education on a host of legislative maneuvers that hardly anyone had ever heard of before. Terms like "Senate parliamentarian", "reconciliation process", and "deem and pass" weren't even on the general public's radar six months ago; but now, anyone who has a problem with the bill that was passed is virtually fluent in "Washingtonese". Why so suddenly? Because ever since the Senate lost its filibuster-proof majority, Democrats in Congress have been exploring every option they have to pass insurance reform (every option, that is, besides holding serious negotiations with Republicans). Have these tactics been used before? Sometimes; but never on something so sweeping and "transformative".

"Historic" is the word the president uses; and he's right. This is the first time in history the federal government has ever required American citizens to purchase anything. No paper less than the Washington Post has questioned whether the Constitution even grants the government power to create such a mandate. Virginia's legislature has already created a law, signed by Governor McDonnell, making it illegal in the Commonwealth for the federal government to mandate purchasing insurance. The Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, is already filing papers to challenge the constitutionality of the bill that passed Congress last night. Multiple states are considering or have already enacted similar measures. This could be one of the greatest challenges between the States and the federal government since the Civil War.

The consequences of this bill's passage could go far beyond the legal arena (though it's hard to overstate the importance of states' powers versus federal powers). We are fewer than eight months away from an election that could completely shift the balance of power in Washington (again). A mere fifteen hours since the final vote was tallied, the website FireNancyPelosi.com has raised approximately half a million dollars to defeat enough Democratic incumbents to tilt the House of Representatives back into Republican control; though, given how close the vote was, you'd hardly need to win that many seats to block further legislation.

I could go on forever about the substantive issues in this bill; it is over 2,700 pages, after all. And, as I indicated, not all the objections to it come from Republicans. My own representative, Congressman Glenn Nye, issued a statement the night before the vote detailing why he would vote "no". Among his objections were potential problems for TRICARE recipients and cuts to children's hospitals, issues that are particularly important to Hampton Roads. However, no matter how reasoned and principled his objections, angry proponents of the bill can't keep civil about it. He's been accused of selling out and even of being a closet Republican. One comment asked who he expected to support him in the coming election, apparently implying that no Democrat would (or should) vote for him after something like this.

But isn't this exactly what we should demand of our elected officials? That they do what's right, regardless of the cost to their candidacy? Certainly, President Obama has made that case numerous times throughout the insurance reform debate. Rep. Nye, in his statement, shows he did exactly what a representative should do: he spoke with "countless small business owners, families, medical professionals, and average citizens across Virginia's 2nd District, and it became very clear that this bill was not the right solution for Virginia's health care challenges." There were no "out of control townhalls" or "backroom deals" to influence his vote; just a simple, straightforward examination of the bill and what it would mean for the people of his district. That's a Congressman I can see myself supporting in eight months.

I'm not a partisan. I don't care which party holds power in Washington or anywhere else in this country. I care about one thing: no matter who holds power or how much of it they hold, they're willing to work with all sides to find the right solutions. What did I see on C-SPAN, Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC last night? I saw the Left coming together with the Far Left to pass a bill that the vast majority of Americans, business owners, medical professionals, and even politicians personally oppose; and I saw the Right coming together with the Middle and even parts of the Left to work to defeat it. I saw a coalition, true enough; but it wasn't led by the president, this time.

Stand and be counted, one and all.

2010-03-18T21:12:00.006-04:00

I joined a group on Facebook called 2010 Census: My Race is American. One of my friends on Facebook started a bit of back-and-forth with me about it. He took up the argument echoed several times a day in the federal government's Census campaign, designed to ... well, promote the Census, basically.

The Census is important, of that there can be no doubt. Without the Census, we wouldn't know the answer to the most important question asked by the Constitution: how many people live in the United States? Without knowing that, how can we know how many representatives to send to Congress, and from where?

So far, so good. But the Census this year, as in past years, asks additional questions. Among them is the question of what race are you? In the government's promotional efforts, it says we need to know how many people live in a particular area to know how many roads, schools, and hospitals we need in those areas. What does that have to do with what race you are? Well, my friend points out that black people, for example, have a higher incidence of diabetes and other metabolic conditions, and the government needs to know about that. But is that the job of the federal government? And why, if that is the reason, do they not ask how much you weigh, or if you smoke or drink? Why not ask what sexual orientation you are? Doesn't HIV affect a greater number of gay people than straight?

There is no constitutional call for Congress to count or consider anything in the Census beyond the number of free persons in the United States. If a hospital or group of hospitals in a particular area has a higher percentage of diabetic patients than another, then there are any number of ways for that information to reach the Capitol. One of those ways is through lobbying firms. Surely the American Diabetes Association can afford to lobby Congress. Another way is for hospitals and doctors to contact senators and representatives directly. Is there a member of Congress in this entire country who won't take the phone call of a dean of medicine when it comes to apportioning federal funds for diabetes assistance? If there is, then let's vote them out office this very year. And what about the Department of Health and Human Services? Why have an HHS Secretary, or a Surgeon General for that matter, if they're not keeping an eye on this sort of thing?

Finally, the government doesn't ask on the Census, "Check all diseases that apply: diabetes, HIV/AIDS, etc." (which would be a much better way to determine diabetes funding apportionment, by the way); it asks what race you are. That is information the federal government does not need. Every possible reason why the government "might" need that information can be satisfied in other, more direct ways; and more constitutional ways, as well. What I find especially hard to believe is that Democrats, the party that supposedly believes in a fundamental right to privacy, are the ones allowing this question to remain in the Census.

There's more to it than the question of whether it's the government's right or responsibility, though. Everyone, from the president himself to the lowliest bum in the dirtiest gutter, is thinking about race in this country. Who's black? Who's white? How many of each are there, and how long until there are more blacks than whites? Who's "half-black", and what's the other half? Which culture should a quarter-black, quarter-white, quarter-Asian, quarter-Native American honor more, and (as regards this Census) which box should you check?

I have only one question about race: why does it matter? Yes, white people have done horrible things to black people, in the past, the present, and probably will in the future. So what? The emphasis on race will exist in all of our minds for so long as we choose to allow it to. Whether you're Chris Matthews, who just couldn't resist after the last State of the Union Address saying, "You know, I forgot for a while that he was black", or some Grand Wizard who wants to "put 'em all in the ground", race is as important to you as you make it.

Yes, it's important to know how important it is to others; but, a lesson we've learned time and time again from the Left's counterproductive efforts to shut up conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh and the Right's equally counterproductive crusade against Hustler founder Larry Flint, the more attention you bring to a topic, the harder it is to make it disappear. If the president truly wants to transcend racial divides, then he'd've done well to distribute a "race-neutral" census. The last thing anti-racists need is the government saying, in any way, that it matters who's black and who's white in America.

My point, basically, is there are other ways for the government to collect the information it actually needs. The Census is the wrong way, and what race I am is not information the government "needs".

Update 13 May 2010:

Arizona (that hotbed of racism and discrimination) has taken a step that anti-racists should be cheering, rather than decrying. I'm not refering to their recent immigration law overhaul, but a law aimed at eliminating school classes that "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals". Predictably, left-leaning pundits and lawmakers have gone nuts.

When I was younger, I watched "Picket Fences", a show about life in a small Wisconsin town. This show addressed many controversial social issues against the backdrop of "smalltown America". One of the issues was bussing from the major metropolitan Green Bay area. I'll never forget the episode when the town was ordered by a federal judge to accept bussed students (most of whom were black), and the town decided to oppose the judge's ruling. They marshaled the police and sheriff departments and lined the streets with officers to block the busses from coming into their town. The busses, however, were escorted in by the U.S. military. So began a very tense season of integrating urban students into a tightknit community that didn't want them there.

What was the point of this? Why was it so important that the people of this town learn to accept these "dangerous" elements into their schools? For that matter, why was it important in the 60's and 70's to integrate the schools? Why should whites, blacks, browns, or any other "colors" mix? I don't really think I need to answer that question, do I?

When, then, did it become so important that we have classes that emphasize our differences? When did it become vital that "ethnic diversity" be promoted? Are we not all Americans? Do we not all share a common culture, a common civilization? Shouldn't that be what we celebrate, not just on the Fourth of July, but every day of every year? Shouldn't we teach our children that we're all the same?

No one wants to forget the trials and tribulations of any ethnic group. On the other hand, neither do we want to give our children any reason to think the state or the schools approve of our being "different". It's bad enough there's actual racism in America; but to reject an opportunity to teach them from the beginning that we're all part of one overriding group is simply irresponsible. Are the races "equal"? Let's teach them that.

Update 28 May 2010:

I came across this video today, and I feel the sentiment could not have been expressed better. How can we realize the dream of not being judged by color or race if we continually emphasize it, or if the government insists on "counting" us based on it?

My race? American!

Immigration reform; at what price?

2010-03-10T17:43:00.010-05:00

The budget is still looming in the (almost) immediate future. There are two wars in the Middle East. Health insurance reform ... is not quite finished. And oh yeah, the economy is still in the garbage disposal. So what does the president do? He holds an immigration reform meeting.

Presidents should be able to multi-task, right? And it's not like immigration reform isn't in his purview. It's not just the president, though. The Senate (all of Congress, really) have their hands full just trying to deal with each other. I'm not saying they're useless, but in any given election year, you'll find more congressional infighting than you really care to see.

The country does need immigration reform, though. It hasn't seen a serious effort since McCain-Kennedy in '07 (which was not exactly a rousing success). Senators Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham are looking to be the next dynamic duo tackling this issue. It's rare enough to find two high-profile lawmakers from different parties working together on issues as sensitive as this one; but their efforts, so far, have not drawn much support from their colleagues.

That's not hard to understand. Many believe the solution is to follow and enforce existing laws, though enforcing the law against roughly twelve million people is no mean feat. The changes to be considered by the president at tomorrow's meeting include a path to citizenship for so-called "undocumented immigrants", a less harsh term for those who are in this country illegally. A somewhat more radical proposal will also be addressed: a national identification card, including biometric verification that a citizen has the right to work in the United States. Now, what does "biometric" mean, exactly? It means the card would include your thumbprint, or even a scan of the veins on the back of your hand, to verify that you are elligible for employment.

Setting aside, for the moment, the question of just how much tax dollars we'd have to spend on creating biometric verification for the more than two hundred million Americans who are old enough to work, there are some serious privacy concerns at stake with such a measure. Congressman Ron Paul, appearing on America Live with Megyn Kelly today, discussed several of those issues. One is having your thumbprint on a card and being forced to submit it to prospective employees. A fingerprint is something that is only collected by the government if you've committed a crime, or been arrested on suspicion of a crime. Even at that, it's only shared with other law enforcement agencies. It's not something for private, independently-owned companies to potentially keep on file for years.

There's also the potential that our verification papers would become our national ID papers, making our fundamental identity that much more a part of the government's business. As Congressman Paul points out, even Social Security cards aren't meant to be used for identification purposes. Now, what about driver's licenses, Megyn Kelly asks? Well, all that card does is certify that you're safe to drive. If you don't drive, then it's no one's business at all; and unless your job includes driving, businesses aren't likely to even ask to see it. You don't even need one to be a member of Congress, Paul tells her.

So why do we need one to go to work? Well, in the words of the president, "we need to build on and improve the existing verification system if we are going to get control of the job market for undocumented workers." As Congressman Paul reiterates in his interview, though, "it's always for good purposes ... It's sort of this idea of 'why not have cameras every place on every street corner because we'll catch the bad guys', or 'well, why don't they have cameras in our houses in case there's child-beating or wife-beating' ... You either believe in freedom or you don't." It's a little extreme, of course, but when you're talking about threats to civil liberties, you have to consider extremes of every measure. (You can watch the entire five-minute, forty-second interview here.)

This immigration meeting almost overshadows another measure the president backs that could certainly be considered a threat to civil liberty. Eighteen states currently take DNA samples from people arrested for crimes in addition to fingerprints and mugshots. I repeat, people arrested for crimes, not convicted. The president believes there should be a national DNA database of "arrested" individuals. Proponents argue that, not only would a national database protect the public, but it would clear (and already has cleared) innocent men and women placed under arrest. However, it still means an involuntary surrender of your DNA before your guilt has been proven. Most states don't even take your DNA once guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, let alone before a trial has even been held.

These are not the first instances where the president has shown himself open to measures that place individual's privacy and civil liberties second to the good of the state. Advocacy groups such as Break the Chains and the Center for Constitutional Rights have already spoken out against the national DNA database, and civil libertarians have been opposing the idea of a national worker eligibility card since it was first proposed. Benjamin Franklin has often been credited with saying "They who can sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I don't know that I necessarily agree with that; but I don't necessarily agree with a national ID card or DNA database, either.

How about you?

UPDATE (03/12/10):

The president held his meeting with Senators Schumer and Graham, and they presented him with an outline of the massive bill they hope to present later this year. Before it can be presented, though, all parties were anxious that it receive more Republican sponsors in the Senate.

Senator Graham said further "in no uncertain terms" that his support for immigration reform this year was conditional upon the president's not using the budget reconciliation tactic (the so-called nuclear option) to pass health insurance reform. However, since the groundwork for using the nuclear option apparently has been laid for some time now, it's unlikely the senator's threat will have much impact on the president's decision.

President Obama also met with a group of Catholic bishops, labor unions, evangelical leaders, and immigrant advocates who had publicly denounced his immigration policies. In the hour-long meeting, he explained to them why, especially after the protracted health insurance battle, immigration reform could not be accomplished without significant Republican support. I wouldn't want to lay odds on how much Republican support he can expect if national ID cards and de facto amnesty are part of the reform.

Letters to Washington - Warner and Nye

2010-03-08T13:32:00.003-05:00

In response to my last letter to Senator Mark Warner, he sent me a copy of several amendments he had made to the Senate's version of health insurance reform. They looked pretty good, to me; but they were all about cost-containment, not ideology. I'd expected that, actually. Ideology is all that separates political parties, after all, and Democrats cannot really be expected to support certain measures that Republicans would support. You may as well ask them to support a bill that allows school prayer with the enticement that creationism will never be taught in public schools.

I don't begrudge anyone their ideology. This is the land of the free, after all. What I want is for our leadership, particularly my own representatives in Congress, at least to acknowledge why I oppose their efforts. It's not just about deficit reduction. It's about not having federal mandates for either individuals or businesses; about not providing coverage for abortions or persons who are in this country illegally; about not having a government-run health insurance system; and about not using the reconciliation process for passage of such an influential and controversial bill. If they are going to vote for a bill that goes against this, then let them at least say so, so I can start shopping for new representatives.

This is a copy of the letter I wrote to Senator Warner, a slightly modified version of which I sent to Senator Jim Webb:

Dear Senator,

I appreciate your reply to my last letter, including the amendment package you included. They look to be very good measures that would help keep down costs, and I'm pleased that the Senate is taking cost control seriously.

There are, however, significant issues that still have not been addressed fully. As I've written before, no health insurance reform can include federal mandates, either for businesses or individuals. As the CBO wrote when President Clinton proposed similar mandates sixteen years ago, this would be the first time in history the government has mandated any sort of purchase by the American people.

Another issue is abortion funding. The president has stated there is no abortion funding in the bill he will send to Congress, but recent statements by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius suggest otherwise. The Stupak Amendment included in the House bill has no true parallel in the Senate version, which the president favors. As for funding of illegal immigrants, I've yet to see language in either bill that expressly prohibits it. Perhaps I missed something; it is thousands of pages long, after all, and will no doubt become even longer if the budget reconciliation process is used (which I also oppose).

Finally, the president has said repeatedly that he would not sign a bill that adds "even one dime" to the federal deficit. The bill he proposes, however, as scored by the CBO, would add significant deficits in the coming years. As these issues rise to the surface, Senator, it becomes clear why Republican congressmen and the public at large still oppose the bill. Even though the president has incorporated some Republican ideas in his proposal, key issues such as banning coverage for illegals and abortion, mandates on individuals and businesses, and the very real possibility that taxes will be raised significantly to pay for it all remain crucial to winning support from the people; including myself.

The president and Congress can incorporate as many cost-cutting measures as they can, Senator; but it misses the heart of the debate. Trimming around the edges won't chop down the tree; and as optimistic as you are about the potential the reconciliation process has for reducing the deficit, it's not as benign a tactic as you believe. Democrats used to remember that.

Sincerely,

Stephen Monteith

This is a copy of the letter I wrote to Congressman Glenn Nye, who is one of the few members of the House of Representatives I would characterize as a centrist:

Dear Congressman,

I appreciate your recent donation to Vetshouse of the money Congressman Rangel donated to your campaign. I know you're a heavy target this election year, and while I haven't decided who I will support, your continued willingness to work across the aisle is a definite selling point, for myself and many others.

Health care reform is still in the air, Congressman. The leadership has been pressuring you, I know. When you talk to them, please make them aware there are significant issues that still have not been addressed fully. As I've written before, no health insurance reform can include federal mandates, either for businesses or individuals. As the CBO wrote when President Clinton proposed similar mandates sixteen years ago, this would be the first time in history the government has mandated any sort of purchase by the American people.

Another issue is abortion funding. The president has stated there is no abortion funding in the bill he will send to Congress, but recent statements by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius suggest otherwise. The Stupak Amendment included in the House bill has no true parallel in the Senate version, which the president favors. As for funding of illegal immigrants, I've yet to see language in either bill that expressly prohibits it. Perhaps I missed something; they are thousands of pages long, after all, and will no doubt become even longer if the budget reconciliation process is used (which I also oppose).

Finally, the president has said repeatedly that he would not sign a bill that adds "even one dime" to the federal deficit. The bill he proposes, however, as scored by the CBO, would add significant deficits in the coming years. As these issues rise to the surface, Congressman, it becomes clear why Republican congressmen and the public at large still oppose the bill. Even though the president has incorporated some Republican ideas in his proposal, key issues such as banning coverage for illegals and abortion, mandates on individuals and businesses, and the very real possibility that taxes, any taxes, will be raised significantly to pay for it all remain crucial to winning support from the people; including myself.

The president and Congress can incorporate as many cost-cutting measures as they can, Congressman; but it misses the heart of the debate. Trimming around the edges won't chop down the tree; and as optimistic as some are about the potential the reconciliation process has for reducing the deficit, it's not as benign a tactic as they believe. Democrats used to remember that.

Thank you for your time, Congressman.

Sincerely,

Stephen Monteith

One Year Later

2010-02-24T13:46:00.006-05:00

It was one year ago today that I first posted in this blog. Much has changed in that time. The president has given two State of the Union addresses, as well as countless television and live appearances, attempting to gain the public's confidence for his health care, energy, education, and economic initiatives. The public's response has been ... mixed. The Tea Parties went from a half-joking suggestion by a CNBC analyst to a nationwide phenomenon. Conservatism, considered by some to be officially "dead" this time last year, has seen an almost unparalleled rebirth, with conservative candidates winning governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, and a Republican winning a Senate seat in Massachusetts for the first time in over half a century. And despite overwhelming Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and a Democrat in the White House, hardly anything can be said to have happened in Washington this last year.

Some blame the lack of action on "obstructionist Republicans", applying the epithet "the Party of No" to the GOP. It's a strange accusation, given how gleefully Democrats embraced that label a few short years ago. On the other hand, given how many Democrats are in Congress and how few Republicans there are, how could you possibly blame the inaction on the GOP? No Republican president in history, even George W. Bush, had as much trouble pushing his agenda through a Democratic Congress, and Republicans have never had as large a majority in Congress as Democrats currently hold. And yet, it's hard to recall a time when Congress has been this gridlocked.

Maybe there's just an unusual amount of acrimony in the country. It would explain some of the vehemence behind the Tea Party movement, certainly. But is this really as bad as it's ever been? After all, there was a time when politicians in Washington challenged each other to duels with pistols. Maybe Republicans are better at getting things done than Democrats. It would explain why more Republicans have served two-term presidencies than Democrats. But it wouldn't explain how they lost both houses of Congress in successive elections. However, we have another Congressional election coming up later this year, and indications are good that Republicans will regain a significant number of seats.

What accounts for it all? I don't usually look for simple answers to complex questions, but I believe I've found one, anyway. In the United States, a larger number of people consider themselves Democrats than Republicans, and more independents than either. Given that Democrats are typically seen as liberal and Republicans are generally conservative, you probably would think that conservatism would be at the bottom of the ideological spectrum and liberalism near the top. However, a recent Newsweek poll shows the opposite is true. While only 22% of respondents consider themselves Republican, 35% Democrat, and 39% Independent, a somewhat surprising 39% characterized themselves as either somewhat or very Conservative. 36% described themselves as Moderate, and only 20% as Liberal. If you go by the numbers, then there are almost twice as many conservatives in this country as liberals, which not only means the U.S. is still very much a "center-right" country, but also that neither political party is the current "favorite".

I'm an independent; I sometimes described myself as anti-partisan because I believe even having political parties is detrimental to the country's health. When you see numbers like the ones above, you have to wonder why people even bother joining parties, since clearly which one you join can't be considered a reliable indicator of your own ideology. It's like a curtain that's been drawn across the country, painting a picture of a liberal party on the left, a conservative party on the right, and a wide swath of moderates right up the middle. When an election like the one in 2008 occurs and the left-leaning party decisively sweeps the right out of power, it's easy to think the middle has joined the left. It's not the case, however; and the greatest evidence we have of that is when the government tries to lead the country to the left and the country pulls steadily rightward. When that happens, you don't get a country that drives up the middle; you get a country that stands perfectly still, like ours now stands.

In a post last march, I echoed the sentiments of George Washington, the first president of this country and the last one to never join a political party. He warned in his farewell address to the nation that "[t]he alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism." As long as there have been political parties, in this or any other country, there has been rivalry between them. Competition is good, but rivalry helps no one but the ticket-sellers. It only gets worse as time passes and the players get more entrenched in their battles with each other. Senator Evan Bayh may not have been right when he decided to retire from Congress, but he was certainly right to abandon the partisan warfare before it consumed him.

I posted a poll last fall/winter in which I asked how many would support a Constitutional amendment banning political parties. At the time, I was having trouble thinking of a solution, short of replacing every single politician in Washington at the same time, and I thought banning parties would make a good start. Even as I typed out the possible responses to the poll, though, I knew generally what the results would be: Yes, 5%; No, I like political parties, 10%; No, people should be allowed to form political parties whether I like them or not, 78%; and Not Sure, 5% (percentages approximated). The vast majority of respondents support free speech and free assembly; which is heartening, I suppose. I didn't really expect anything else.

Partisanism remains a problem, though; and even if parties were eliminated, it still wouldn't cancel the old, entrenched rivalries. People would still remember that President Obama and Speaker Pelosi were Democrats, once upon a time, and they'd still remember that Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin were Republicans. So what good would it do? I'll tell you.

For one thing, it would draw back the curtain that covers the land. No more would we have to scratch our heads over how a center-right country could elect an all-Democratic leadership; no more Blue Dog Democrats or Republicans In Name Only (RINO's); no more Majority Leaders and Minority Leaders in the House and Senate, all trying to keep their caucuses "in line" for the votes; and certainly no more 24-hour news coverage of how many seats Republicans can expect to win or lose in November. Our leaders could focus on the issues themselves and not worry about how it would affect their primary results. No more Arlen Specters or Joe Liebermans being "muscled out" by angry members of their own parties.

For another thing, it would allow a new generation of leaders to arise who are defined solely based on how they vote, and not by the little letter that's attached to the end of their name. Imagine looking at a candidate and not asking yourself, "Is he really a Republican, or is he just calling himself that?" Imagine a whole country at the polls voting based on the issues and not on which party the candidates have pandered to the most? We could replace that painted curtain with a transparent one that allows the country to decide based on what really matters to them, and not on a "damaged brand name".

I'm no longer talking about eliminating the parties altogether. I now feel the best first step to take is changing the way we conduct elections. Why should a ballot indicate whether a candidate is Republican or Democrat? Or Green or Libertarian or Communist, for that matter? Why is a candidate's political party always attached to his or her name? Why is it more important than their memberships in the Rotary Club or the NRA or MoveOn.org? If the RNC and the DNC want to continue endorsing candidates, then let them; but when voters go to the polls, they should go armed only with the knowledge they have gained for themselves. If they can't remember who the Republican is or who the Democrat is and they don't want to risk voting for the "wrong" candidate, then they can take that risk or leave it; but it shouldn't be up to the registrar to tell the voters what they should have learned for themselves before entering the booth.

Setting aside for the moment how practical it is or isn't, would you support altering election laws so that candidates' party affiliations and identifications are removed from the ballot? Would you support changing the ways that state and federal governments operate so they are no longer divided into "Majority" and "Minority" parties? If you believe it would make things any better in Washington and the country, then vote yes.

Stephen Responds to Newsweek - How the GOP Sees It

2010-02-23T23:10:00.005-05:00

In the March 1, 2010 issue of Newsweek, the cover story, "How the GOP Sees It", examines what direction the country would take if the Republican Party was in power; at least, it offers Newsweek's opinion of what direction the country would take. It's not a bad article, and I'd actually encourage people to read it. Keep in mind when you do, however, that the writers of the article may be overlooking several key elements of Republican philosophy.

Here is the letter I wrote in reply to the article:

Dear Editor,

I was impressed with your choice of cover story this week. However, reading it, I found a number of misleading and sometimes incomplete items. To start, the first few paragraphs of the article makes clear the writers have already concluded Republicans are not interested in bipartisanship at all. This is certainly a debatable point, but I won't debate it here.

The writers state that, while Republicans in Congress are adamant about lowering taxes, they have "rejected Democratic bills that tried to lure Republicans by including significant tax cuts." Why do people assume that, just because you include something in a bill that Republicans want, it's reason enough for them to support it? A bill can be stuffed with tax cuts, but if it's bad in general for the country, then that's reason enough to vote against it. Suppose it had been a bill authorizing abortion clinics in every public school in the country. Would the writers of the article conclude that Republicans should support it just because it also allows prayer in school?

In the category of supposed contradictions, the article goes on to state that "George W. Bush, an avowed small-government conservative, presided over a massive increase in the size of government." This is not a contradiction. That "massive increase" was the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which kept the country safe from every terrorist attack from the time of its creation to the day President Bush left office. Small-government conservatives can still believe in a strong national defense.

Regarding health care, Newsweek failed to address several major differences between Republican and Democratic philosophies; differences that would certainly justify so-called "stonewalling" by the GOP. One is abortion funding, which conservatives and even a large portion of moderates steadfastly oppose. Another is coverage of illegal aliens, which President Obama claims to oppose and yet consistently fails to prohibit in his own and Congress' versions of reform. Other important issues include the federal mandate, Medicare cuts, and the public option, all of which face significant opposition not just from Republicans, but from the country at large. And, of course, there's the question of how to pay for it all. Factor these into the equation, and the article's expressed confusion about why the American people continue to be ambivalent about supporting the president's efforts is answered.

I found little to criticize about the next two sections, foreign policy and terrorism. The article makes clear where the Republicans and Democrats disagree, and the problems inherent in trying to reach consensus. I appreciated including Senator Kit Bond's concern that, by treating terrorists like criminals instead of enemy combatants now, it could make it difficult to prosecute Osama bin Laden as an enemy combatant.

Finally, the article addresses education. When Newsweek says that Republicans voted against "Race to the Top" because it was part of the president's stimulus package, you should clarify that this was no knee-jerk partisan maneuver, but rather an impossible choice legislators are often forced to make: either vote for a bad bill or vote against a good program. "Race to the Top" should never have been part of the stimulus package; including it in the bill probably was a partisan maneuver.

This was a fairly good article, and I enjoyed reading it; but the writers should have gone further in exploring Republican philosophies, motivations, and proposals.

Thank you for your time,

Stephen Monteith

Moment of Truth

2010-02-22T23:37:00.002-05:00

Robert Kuttner, writing for the Huffington Post, believes the president should do what Democrats have been calling for him to do since the Senate reached that magic filibuster-proof number last spring and just bowl over the Republicans with regards to health insurance reform. The problem with Mr. Kuttner's article is that it proceeds from the assumption that Republicans are not interested in reaching a concensus with the president on health insurance reform (and it is insurance reform, not health care reform). There are, in fact, many areas in which Republicans and Democrats agree, and it is in those areas the president and Congress should focus their efforts.

They should start by writing and passing a modest bill together containing only the reforms on which they can all agree. Once that is done and both sides have shown they can indeed act like grownups, they can then start to seriously debate the remaining reforms.

Or they can just keep fighting all through the next couple of election cycles. *shrugs* Whichever.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Stephen Responds to Tony Horwitz

2010-02-20T20:03:00.005-05:00

Best-selling author and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Tony Horwitz recently wrote an essay on the Commonwealth of Virginia for the book "State by State". Meant to provide a "portrait" of the United States, this book features authors, celebrities, even a chef or two who all contribute chapters on every state in the union.

My verdict? If the chapter on Virginia is typical of the entire book, then every copy of it should be dumped in a pile and burned.

This is a copy of the letter I sent to Mr. Horwitz, copied to one of the book's editors, Matt Weiland.

Dear Mr. Horwitz,

My name is Stephen Monteith. I work at a Barnes & Noble in Virginia Beach, VA, and recently discovered the book "State by State". Fascinated by a book that purports to portray "the beauty, the kitsch, the unexpected and the quintessential things that make each state distinctive", and having lived in Virginia my whole life, I first turned to your essay on the Commonwealth to see what was written.

Mr. Horwitz, I am deeply disappointed at the tone your essay takes, the picture it paints of one of the earliest states of the union. In eight and a half pages, you have rarely a good word to say about Virginia, its history, its culture, and most especially its residents. Like the fourth-graders you almost apologetically mention in your opening, you see, and report, only a "charnel house", one "steeped in gore".

You talk of the Civil War battles throughout much of your essay and the "evil" and "carnage" perpetrated therein; but you never once mention the Revolutionary War, in which so many Virginians took up the charge issued by our first governor Patrick Henry: "Give me liberty or give me death!" You omit almost any references to the eight presidents who came from Virginia, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, choosing instead to highlight William Henry Harrison, and him only because of his relation to a slave-owning ancestor of his. You spend an entire page and more detailing our involvement in the persecution, death, and "ghoulish afterlife" of Nat Turner, but you do not mention even once Douglas Wilder, the nation's first black governor.

Mr. Horwitz, I have no doubt that your time in Bosnia, Iraq and the Sudan was served with distinction; but perhaps spending so much time in those "history-haunted lands" has left you with a black-lensed perspective of the rest of the world. I don't expect or desire anyone to turn a blind eye to Virginia's dark periods; but in an essay meant to "reveal a state’s beauty marks and moles", I do expect to find much greater balance. This was the first chapter I read from the book, and after reading it, I put it down in disgust; and partially in fear of discovering that every state had received similar treatment. On the other hand, if ever I felt the argument needed to be made that Virginia was a wretched place to be, then you would be the man I would choose to make that argument.

Sincerely,

Stephen Monteith

UPDATE - Mr. Horwitz's response, and mine in turn:

Stephen, thanks for your note and think I've been to that B and N one one of my visits to SE Va. I'm sorry you felt that way about my essay, and all I'll say in defense is that I'm not responsible for the marketing you quote, and regret that you opened the book looking for balanced or comprehensive approach to each state. My assignment, if you can call it that, was to try and find a personal and perhaps quirky take on Virginia. Since I'm a history nerd, with somewhat of an eye for the dark underside of history, this seemed a way to frame the piece and I just dove in after a few false starts in other directions (I tried writing about my love of the Blue Ridge since childhood, but am not very good at nature). If I could do it again, I guess I'd convey that I do love Virginia--in part for the history I outlined in the piece. Obviously, we don't share a common approach to or view of the past. I go there looking for great stories, tragedy, humor, irony and what I feel is the truth. If it makes me feel good about my country, great, but I'm not seeking that. And if I were there and we could debate this over a beer, I'd argue that the whole "liberty or death" line is pretty hollow given that one fifth of the nation was enslaved. Anyway, if you can bear to read a different take on Virginia that you might find more loving, at least at times, I wrote a book called "Confederates in the Attic" that gets into Wilder and other aspects of Virginia's healthy contemporary response and debate on racial and other matters. All the best, Tony

Mr. Horwitz,

I appreciate your reply to my letter last week. I realize you had nothing to do with how it was marketed, but still, with only eight pages or so to give people a snapshot of the Commonwealth, I had hoped you would have taken a somewhat lighter tone, at least.

I took your advice and have begun reading "Confederates in the Attic". It is an interesting read, going farther in depth, of course, than your contribution to "State by State", and written with more apparent affection. I look forward to finishing it.

I apologize, Mr. Horwitz, if my first letter to you seemed overly defensive or confrontational. With the recent death of Howard Zinn, there's been a lot of discussion of just how much we need to peel back the covers of history. No one, I'm sure, wants to review the past with any parts omitted, no matter how ugly; but at the same time, we can't ignore how exceptional, how extraordinary, and how inspiring our forebears were, their faults notwithstanding.

In particular, I've grown rather protective of Virginia in light of the national attention we've received with our recent elections. The written word is more powerful than the spoken word, as I'm sure you know; and though newspapers and magazines can and frequently do print retractions, books are harder to revise once they are on the shelves, and even harder to dispute. I suppose, when I read your chapter, I felt it was my duty to respond. Perhaps I've grown too sensitive.

Again, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my letter. I look forward to reading more of your work.

Sincerely,

Stephen Monteith

UPDATE - Tony gets the last word:

Don't worry, your letter wasn't confrontational, it was polite and thoughtful, certainly as compared to most I receive, always happy to have honest criticism and disagreement. I've never been a big fan of Zinn, and certainly don't endorse a knee-jerk rejection of everything American, but again, I guess I don't go searching in our history for great moral lessons, pro or con. To me, what's fascinating is how someone--to take the obvious example, Jefferson--can be brilliant, visionary, and yes, inspirational, while also being a terrible hypocrite etc. Saints, if they
exist, aren't very interesting to me, nor are unalloyed villains. Or rather, forget if they're interesting, I just don't think seeing things in black and white is true to history or the human condition. Can't one love Virginia in the same way one loves family? Can't John Smith or Jefferson or Stonewall Jackson be seen as critical figures in our history, worthy of study, without glossing over their (in our eyes) faults? Are those faults in some sense inseparable from their greatness? Anyway, no one could ever accuse Virginia of being boring. Best, Tony

Letters to Washington - The Nuclear Option

2010-02-19T20:59:00.003-05:00

President Obama has heard the American people (well, maybe). He's meeting next week with Republican Congressional leadership to discuss their ideas for what should and shouldn't be included in health care reform. So far, so good. However, he's also currently writing his own version of health care reform, blending the House and Senate bills in what he hopes will be legislation that can pass both houses of Congress.

This report has troubled Republican leadership, already skeptical of the coming bipartisan summit. With the addition of Scott Brown from Massachusetts, Republicans have enough voices in the Senate to filibuster any reform legislation (except for the version that passed in late December). The president hopes to use a tactic called reconciliation, also known as the "nuclear option", to reform health care as a budgetary matter, which removes the filibuster as an option.

It's a tactic that troubles more than just Republicans in Congress. I'm not a Republican, as my regular readers know. I honestly don't care which party holds power, as long as they're open to the public's wishes. A tactic such as budget reconciliation, at this point, shows that the current administration is not. The president and Democrats in Congress have struggled to find even one Republican who will vote for their version of reform. Far from finding any who will, there is actually a large number of Democrats who either voted against it or who needed significant "added incentives" before they would vote for it. When conditions are that bad, you would think the president would agree with Congressman John Boehner of Ohio, who said yesterday "a productive, bipartisan conversation on health care starts with a clean sheet of paper."

He apparently doesn't agree, however; a tactic like this indicates he is more dedicated than ever to passing something that the public is more dedicated than ever to defeating.

This is a copy of the letter that I just sent to Senators Jim Webb and Mark Warner of Virginia.

Dear Senator,

I've written to you many times about what should be included in health care reform. Though we haven't always seen eye-to-eye on what's needed in the law, I hope you will agree with me about how reform should be achieved.

It's been reported that the president is indeed seeking to utilize budget reconciliation, the so-called nuclear option, to pass health care reform. Senator, I hope you are as troubled as I am by this tactic. Earlier this month, the president announced that he wanted to meet, publicly even, with Republican leadership to discuss their ideas for reform. It seemed like a good sign that he was aware of the public's opposition to the reforms he and Democratic leaders in Congress have pursued. However, a week before the summit has even started, President Obama is already writing his own version of reform and making plans to pass it without any support or input from conservatives at all.

Senator, you come from Virginia; you know that conservatives are not all knee-jerk obstructionists, and you know that we have good ideas. For the president to take steps like this now, before he has even sat with the Republican leadership, is both unilateral and hypocritical. What is the point of even having a summit if he's going to pursue this route? Some have said that it's just a fallback option in case the GOP has no real suggestions; but surely such an option could wait until after the summit, at least. To make this sort of move now is unconscionable.

You know how unpopular and unwanted the reforms President Obama is proposing are. You've seen that, far from there being bipartisan support for the bill, there is actually significant bipartisan opposition to both of them. Using a tactic like budget reconciliation only makes it worse. The American people deserve to have their objections met, answered, and assuaged before anything is passed by Congress and written into law by the president.

I know you've supported this legislation for a while now, Senator, and that you want to see it succeed. Despite your past votes, I want your pledge to vote against any health care reform that Congress attempts to pass through the reconciliation process. It is an inexcusable tactic, especially at this point.

Sincerely,

Stephen Monteith

Here is the letter I sent to Congressman Glenn Nye, who voted against the House's version of health care reform:

Dear Congressman,

I thank you for your vote against the House's bill. I know it couldn't have been easy to go against your party. Though Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, haven't always seen eye-to-eye on what's needed in the law, I hope we all can agree about how reform should be achieved.

It's been reported that the president is indeed seeking to utilize budget reconciliation, the so-called nuclear option, to pass health care reform. Congressman, I hope you are as troubled as I am by this tactic. Earlier this month, the president announced that he wanted to meet, publicly even, with Republican leadership to discuss their ideas for reform. It seemed like a good sign that he was aware of the public's opposition to the reforms he and Democratic leaders in Congress have pursued. However, a week before the summit has even started, President Obama is already writing his own version of reform and making plans to pass it without any support or input from conservatives at all.

Congressman, you come from Virginia; you know that conservatives are not all knee-jerk obstructionists, and you know that we have good ideas. For the president to take steps like this now, before he has even sat with the Republican leadership, is both unilateral and hypocritical. What is the point of even having a summit if he's going to pursue this route? Some have said that it's just a fallback option in case the GOP has no real suggestions; but surely such an option could wait until after the summit, at least. To make this sort of move now is unconscionable.

You know how unpopular and unwanted the reforms President Obama is proposing are. You've seen that, far from there being bipartisan support for the bill, there is actually significant bipartisan opposition to both of them. Using a tactic like budget reconciliation only makes it worse. The American people deserve to have their objections met, answered, and assuaged before anything is passed by Congress and written into law by the president.

I know you've voted against this legislation in the past, and I hope you will in the future, whether it's part of the budget or not. I also hope I can count on you to speak to the rest of your Democratic colleagues and urge them to vote against any health care reform that Congress attempts to pass through the reconciliation process. It is an inexcusable tactic, especially at this point.

Sincerely,

Stephen Monteith

Defeat Prince Frederic

2010-02-17T13:57:00.003-05:00

Well, I've written before about candidates that excite me, candidates that bore me, candidates that either inspire me to support them or don't; but very rarely have I ever written about candidates who inspired me to directly oppose them. Frederic von Anhalt is one such candidate.

Prince Frederic is described by the Associated Press as "a tabloid writer's dream". He's married to the infamous Zsa Zsa Gabor (her eighth marriage, his seventh); he claimed to be a long-time lover of Anna Nicole Smith and the father of her baby (which was later refuted); and he's an adopted member of European royalty. Now, he's running for Governor of California.

This is an election that I seriously considered avoiding in my blog. Though the rest of the country has a vested interest in California's success, even to the point the federal government floated the idea of "bailing them out" (if it comes to that), my feeling is they should determine their own politics, their own laws, and especially their own leaders. There are plenty of candidates running for statewide and federal offices in the Golden State, and while I support some of them, I don't really feel it appropriate to involve myself in those races. At least, I didn't feel that way.

California politics, particularly the gubernatorial races, have a goofy reputation in the rest of the country. When Arnold Schwarzenegger ran to replace the recalled Governor Gray Davis in 2003, he was hardly alone on the ballot. A host of actors, entrepreneurs, porn stars, and even a character from the cartoon strip "Doonesbury" were "also rans" that year. This year, candidates include former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, former Governor Jerry Brown, and State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner (Governor Schwarzenegger is prohibited from running again by term limits). This seems like a fair crop of candidates, and any "also rans" can add "candidate for Governor" to their memoirs, if they like.

Prince Frederic, though, is more than just another third-party candidate. He is "royalty", after all, and may be able to donate a large sum of his own money to fund his campaign. His notoriety gives him name recognition that other third-party candidates would not have. His positions on legalizing marijuana, gay marriage, and prostitution (at least partly so he can tax all of them to help raise revenue in California) could make him rather popular in certain key demographics, and give him access to more fundraising. And running as an independent helps him with those who are frustrated with the two-party system.

Still, I wasn't as shaken by all that as I was by the attitude with which he entered the race. He said in an interview that he has watched the governor for years and is tired of all the broken promises, declaring that he himself "does not make promises he can't keep." So far, so good. However, when asked about his qualifications to be chief executive of one of the largest economies in the world, let alone the largest state in the nation, Prince Frederic merely responded that Governor Schwarzenegger "had no more experience than I do" when he was first elected. (How did that work out for California, by the way?)

In response to his various high-profile hijinks and whether they'd affect his candidacy, the prince just shrugged. "I went through lots of things, lots of scandals, but that was yesterday, that's old news," he said. "Look at what Bill Clinton did in the White House. That was bad, but he got away with it. America gives you a break." America does not "give you a break", your highness. America demands more of its leaders, more of its governors and presidents than we do of our private citizens. We demand leaders who inspire us, who can actually lift us and lead us to greater things.

I was going to stay out of California politics, since it's so far from where I am, but in an age where one state's collapse can mean the collapse of the whole country, in a world where a person can cross into your state illegally and then make his way across the country to mine, your state is not so far from mine. Thank you, Prince Frederic, for convincing me that no state is far enough away that the man running it can't ruin things for the rest of the country. Congratulations; here's one Virginian who'll be working against you in the coming election.

Those of you on Facebook can join a new group, Defeat Prince Frederic van Anhalt. It does not support any one candidate, so whoever you support in the California Governor's race, you can join; as long as you oppose Prince Frederic.

"You don’t need a resume or permission to try and prevent your country and your city from failing."

2010-02-06T15:53:00.008-05:00

I've said, too many times, that there simply are not enough candidates who actually inspire me to support them. Politicians in general just don't do enough for me. On the other hand, the majority of candidates (three out of five, so far) who do inspire me tend to have lived their lives outside of politics. Pia is the third of those three.

27 year-old Pia Varma's parents moved to this country from India just before she was born. She lives in Pennsylvania, where she writes for the Mises Institute, a world-class economics and philosophy think tank. She first became interested in running for public office when she tried to fight for green-building projects to revitalize the Kensington area of Philadelphia. Her work met daunting resistance in the form of the Industrial Empowerment Zone, a taxpayer-funded program that has arguably done nothing but hinder economic and social development.

Frustrated by how "business as usual" stands in the way of real progress, not only in Pennsylvania, but in the whole United States, Ms. Varma is now running for Congress in Pennsylvania's 1st District. She will be the first serious challenger to Congressman Robert Brady, the incumbent, in over a decade. http://votepia.com/2010/02/01/pia-varma-to-run-for-pennsylvanias-first-congressional-district/

When I say this candidacy inspires me, I don't mean to suggest that I agree with Ms. Varma on every issue; I don't even know what all of her positions are. It's the candidacy itself that excites me. Here we have a young, idealistic, enthusiastic woman who sees a problem in her home town, in her home country, and is taking steps to solve it. She tried working with the system; that didn't work. She tried working outside the system; that didn't work. Now, she's going to work within the system; I hope it works. When I say I don't like politicians, I mean the stereotypical perpetual campaign machines who do nothing but look for ways to stay right where they are. Pia Varma represents a different type of candidate: one who gets into the race to change things for the better, who probably wouldn't even be running if she thought she could trust those who are currently in office to do it for her. Like I always say, you can either support a candidate or become one; Pia Varma has become one.

It's inspiring.

Letters to Washington - Health care and the budget

2010-02-03T22:06:00.004-05:00

The president's budget for the coming year is out now. Not many have read it yet, but what has been read is already troubling some people.

This is a copy of the letter I wrote to Senator Mark Warner of Virginia:

Dear Senator,

I appreciate all you do for our commonwealth as senator, as I do your efforts as governor. Cost containment and fiscal responsibility is certainly the most important issue facing the federal government right now. It would seem, then, that you would want to include every reasonable cost containment measure you could in health care reform. However, while some issues like tort reform were not even seriously debated in either the Senate or the House of Representatives, it's appalling that other measures were included purely for the purpose of securing votes from some senators. It seems to me that, all politics aside, the U.S. Senate should be crafting a health reform bill that can pass on its merits rather than on so-called "sweetheart" deals.

I know that, especially with a bill as controversial as this one, it is difficult to gain support from enough lawmakers to pass anything meaningful. However, as the president himself said, there are many areas and issues on which Republicans and Democrats agree. That would seem to be the best place to start with a bill like this. Knowing from the start how difficult it would be to gain support, bi-partisan or otherwise, the Senate should be working to produce a bill that begins with those cost containment provisions that you mentioned and excludes measures the American people have rejected.

One of those measures is mandating that American citizens buy health insurance. This would be the first time in history that the federal government has required Americans buy any good or service. As I'm sure you know by now, Virginia's and other state's legislatures have already begun drafting legislation to assert their state rights to oppose mandatory coverage. Massachusetts, of course, already mandates individual purchasing, but that is a state measure; and the voters there expressly rejected the federal government's authority to impose another mandate. If mandates are required, then it should be the states' prerogative.

Another measure the public, including myself, has rejected is public funding of abortion. As I wrote to you in my last letter, any health care bill must provide unbreakable restrictions on abortion funding. However, the president's proposed budget for fiscal year 2010 explicitly supports and includes public funding of abortion. It allows funding of abortions in the District of Columbia and proposes overturning the ban on the Legal Services Corporation, which among other things counsels people who receive abortions. It also increases funding for Planned Parenthood and other programs and organizations that promote abortion planning. Restricting abortion funding in health care reform is virtually useless if Congress still funds groups that facilitate abortions. As with health care reform, it seems the proposed budget includes measures like this that the public rejects and reduces funding for other programs, including border security.

I'm seeing many parallels between the proposed budget and the recent health care reform bills, in fact. First of all, I don't like that this budget was apparently written with no significant input from Republican or even Democratic lawmakers. Now, whatever issues members of Congress have with the budget will need to be resolved through a lengthy amendment process, maybe several. The result will likely be yet another costly, controversial bill that hardly any will be proud to say they support.

I don't know everything that's in the president's budget, Senator, because I haven't read all of it. On the other hand, I know that Congress hasn't, either. Not to cast doubt on you or any other public servant, but I would appreciate a pledge from you to read the entire budget before voting on it, so that you will know for yourself what it contains. If time is not given, either to Congress or the public, to review the proposed legislation before a vote is called, then I want you to vote against it. I will never accept, Senator, a yea vote on a bill that you have not read or that I have not had the chance to read.

Thank you for your help, Senator. I look forward to your continued support.

Sincerely,

Stephen Monteith

I wrote a similar letter to Senator Jim Webb. This is what I wrote to Congressman Glenn Nye:

Dear Congressman,

I'd like to personally thank you for your vote against H.R. 3962. By now, I'm sure you know that Virginia's General Assembly has already begun drafting its own legislation asserting our state rights in this case. When Congress reviews health care reform in the coming days, they should look at it from that perspective: what is the states' prerogative, and what is the federal government's.

That isn't why I'm writing to you today, though. The president has released copies of his budget for the coming fiscal year. I'm seeing parallels between it and the recent health care reform efforts; not in substance, but in style. First of all, I don't like that this budget was apparently written with no significant input from Republican or even Democratic lawmakers. Now, whatever issues members of Congress have with the budget will need to be resolved through a lengthy amendment process, maybe several. The result will likely be yet another costly, controversial bill that hardly any will be proud to say they support.

One of those issues is abortion funding. You voted against the House's version of health care reform, Congressman, but in your letter to me, you did not include your feelings concerning the abortion restrictions in the bill. I was happy with them, personally; but the new budget not only includes public funding for abortion in the District of Columbia, but increases funding to organizations and programs like Planned Parenthood as well. Prohibiting abortion funding in health care reform is meaningless if the federal government funds it in other ways.

I don't know everything that's in the president's budget, Congressman, because I haven't read all of it. On the other hand, I know that Congress hasn't, either. Not to cast doubt on you or any other public servant, but I would appreciate a pledge from you to read the entire budget before voting on it, so that you will know for yourself what it contains. If time is not given, either to Congress or the public, to review the proposed legislation before a vote is called, then I want you to vote against it. I will never accept, Congressman, a yea vote on a bill that you have not read or that I have not had the chance to read.

Thank you again for your service, Congressman.

Sincerely,

Stephen Monteith

Draft Kudlow

2010-01-31T13:03:00.004-05:00

Was Scott Brown's victory a "game changer"? I think so. It has inspired conservative challengers in other places that were also considered "unwinnable". In New York, for example, there is a strong "Draft Kudlow" movement to unseat Senator Charles Schumer. I'd encourage everyone here to become part of that movement, not because I'm conservative and Senator Schumer is liberal, but because of the serious disrespect that he holds for people who disagree with him. He's promoted policies that would have serious economic consequences not just for New York but for the rest of the country as well.

On the other hand, there's Larry Kudlow, host of CNBC's The Kudlow Report and former economic advisor to President Ronald Reagan. In the past, he's worked side by side with such notables as Bill Clinton, John Podesta, Tim Russert, and former New York Governor George Pataki. His record of non-partisanship is certainly better than Senator Schumer's.

There's currently a movement to draft Mr. Kudlow into the race, at www.draftkudlow.com. There is also a Facebook page you can Fan: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Draft-Larry-Kudlow/263938964077

Maybe they just liked him better

2010-01-20T13:38:00.005-05:00

They're talking about him. From the Huffington Post to the Washington Post, from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times, from the morning shows to The Daily Show, and all over the blogosphere, they're talking about Scott Brown and what his victory means.

As I'm sure you've heard, Scott Brown, a Republican, won the special election in Massachusetts to fill the late Edward Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate. If you're wondering why this is so newsworthy, then let me be as brief as possible. First of all, Massachusetts has been described as being bluer than a Smurf, meaning a Republican could hardly expect to win any sort of election, let alone to a seat held by a man so liberal that he challenged then President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination. That's all conventional wisdom, though. Given the number of Republican governors Massachusetts has elected in recent years, it's not quite that surprising to have a Republican senator.

More than that, the U.S. Senate rules say that, in order to end debate on a particular piece of legislation, you need 60 senators to agree that it's been discussed enough and it's time to vote. The Republican Party, with Scott Brown, now has enough voices in the Senate to keep any bill from coming to a vote. Obviously, this is significant, given the number of highly controversial bills facing the Senate, including whatever final version of health care President Obama and the Congressional Democratic leadership present to the Senate in the next few weeks.

Did that really matter to voters in Massachusetts, though? Was parliamentary procedure foremost in the minds of people who went to the ballot box? Perhaps. After all, Scott Brown campaigned on the promise that he would oppose the health care bill. Keep in mind, MA already has universal health care, or something very much like it, and most don't want to rock the boat by allowing the federal government to pass its own version, which would be redundant at best in the Bay State. Voters around the country wonder if the federal government should pass it at all, since MA has demonstrated that states can handle the issue on their own.

But let's forget about the rest of the country, for the moment. Taking this election out of the context of recent Republican gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey, why would Bay Staters vote for Scott Brown? He's very likable, first of all. He's a family man who did most of his campaigning himself. He was on the trail, unlike his opponent, Martha Coakley, who seemed reluctant to "shake hands in the cold". In fact, Coakley made a number of missteps, not the least of which was referring to former Red Sox great Curt Schilling as a Yankees fan. Though she claimed it was just a joke, the deed was done.

An even greater mistake, of course, was taking MA voters for granted. As I mentioned before, MA is seen as one of the most liberal states in the union. You can hardly blame people for assuming that Coakley would win, especially after she'd risen to the top of a small group of potential Democratic candidates in a primary just months earlier. However, during the holiday season, she took several weeks off campaigning, while Brown continued on the stump, introducing himself to voters and spreading his message. He had a chance to define the race, and to define himself as the best possible candidate to send to Washington, while his opponent was basically missing in action.

We just had an election here in Virginia. The winner of the election, Bob McDonnell, campaigned on the issues. He didn't attack his opponent, Creigh Deeds, he didn't smear anyone in Washington or anywhere else; he simply stood up every day and said what he planned to do for the people of Virginia. While Deeds did his best to throw mud, McDonnell stayed positive, and he won in a proverbial landslide.

That's how Scott Brown won. His message was positive, issues-based, and occasionally populist. He listened to the voters, and he gave them something to listen to in return. He didn't pander, certainly; he was himself on the stump, and he'll likely be himself in Washington, too. That's why people responded to him so well.

There are many theories about how he pulled off his "miracle upset". Some say the administration and Congress had gone too liberal this last year, while others actually claim they hadn't gone liberal enough. Some say they've been too ineffective, too inefficient, or too inconsiderate of what the public wants. While any of these theories may or may not be true, the "sweeping tide" that's making its way across the country, in my opinion, had less to do with Brown's victory than the fact that he was simply the better candidate. Certainly, he wouldn't have had as much money in his campaign coffers or as many staffers and volunteers without the support of Virginians, Louisianans, Utahns, New Yorkers, and other Americans. In the end, though, the only Americans who could vote were the ones in his home state; and that's where he won.

"Virginia is for lovers ... of renewable energy" (SotC, Pt. 2)

2010-01-19T21:25:00.002-05:00

The first half of Governor Bob McDonnell's first State of the Commonwealth Address could accurately be described as the appetizer, the potatoes of the speech, while the second half could be called the real meat. In the first half, he talked about drawing various types of business to Virginia, boosting tourism, and even going to the stars, in a way.

Around the halfway mark to his speech, the governor brought up the energy industry. One of the highlights of his campaign, for myself at least, was his embrace of alternative energy sources in addition to, not instead of, nuclear and clean coal technologies to make Virginia the "energy capital of the east coast". The applause from the General Assembly was thunderous as he began to speak about American energy independence.

One of his goals is for Virginia to become the first state on the eastern seaboard to sell the leasing rights to explore and drill offshore for oil and natural gas in 2011. With the federal moratorium on offshore drilling gone, the first state to take advantage will reap an economic bonanza, in Gov. McDonnell's words. More than that, environmentally sound offshore drilling will create thousands of jobs right here in Virginia, and is in keeping with the president's commitment to making America energy independent. It will go a very long way to closing our current budget gap and will provide millions for investment opportunities. He even called on the Assembly to vote in this session to commit 20% of the tax revenues generated from offshore drilling, and of any authorized royalties they receive, to renewable energy projects and the other 80% going to transportation infrastructure.

He spoke of many different types of energy, including renewable ones. As technologies for harvesting and utilizing natural gas and clean coal become more efficient, energy production will grow. Regarding nuclear energy, the governor said, "Virginia has more private sector nuclear capacity than any other state in America." He asked the General Assembly to make the entire commonwealth a "green jobs zone". "Any business in the state that creates a green energy job over the next five years will receive an income tax credit of $500 per position. Virginia is for lovers ... of renewable energy."

Unfortunately, as he next pointed out, investments of any kind come at the expense of spending cuts, some "painful". He repeatedly called on the Assembly to act in this session. Responding to the conventional wisdom that tax hikes are unavoidable when facing a $4 billion budget shortfall, Gov. McDonnell pledged to work with everyone to find other, better solutions. He reminded us that Virginians are already struggling, and that increased taxes would only increase the burden on families and workers. In his words, "If you pass a bill in this recession that raises taxes on the hardworking families of Virginia, I will veto it. And if you pass a budget embedded with those same increases, I won't approve it."

Instead, as he has before promised, every opportunity to save will be embraced. As governor, he and his staff, as well as his Cabinet and officers, will cut their own pays and budgets. He called on the Assembly to "think outside the box" when it comes to the budget and what to cut, challenging the all-too-conventional wisdom sometimes used by lawmakers when setting budgets. I'm sure some of you remember that the U.S. Congress just this last year voted to raise their own salaries, despite the massive spending bills they've passed at almost the same time. As I've said before, Congress could take a lesson or two from our new governor.

He also spoke of consolidating some government programs and shedding others, most notably the state liquor stores. As he put it, while campaigning, he "did not run into anybody who thought that selling Jack Daniels whiskey or Grey Goose vodka was a core function of government." That's simply common sense, right there, in my opinion.

Moving into issues regarding education, the governor mentioned that Virginia is ranked the best place for a young person to succeed out of all the states. He introduced his Secretary of Education, Gerard Robinson, whose struggle to overcome poor grades in high school have yielded him a Master's in Education from Harvard and earned him renown as a national expert on education reform. His story is an example to everyone, and he'll be working with the governor to improve the education system in Virginia. Not only will a higher percentage of education spending go directly to improving conditions in the classroom, but also the number of charter schools will increase, as Gov. McDonnell and President Obama both agree should happen.

Next on the list is transportation, seen by many Virginians as the key issue in last year's gubernatorial election. Right away, the governor is calling to have the rest stops reopened along our highways and interstates. He also feels that, on rural interstates, the speed limit should be raised to 70 miles an hour. These are just two steps he'll take to reform our transportation system. Reducing congestion and increasing efficiency will be top priorities in the coming year, and he highlighted legislation that's already been written to address it.

Even more important is the safety and security of Virginians. As a former Attorney General, Bob McDonnell has a unique perspective on this issue, and has many proposals to push back against gangs, protect Virginians from criminals, and rehabilitate prisoners into society.

In closing, he acknowledged that in four years, he'll address the commonwealth as governor for the last time (Virginia law, if you don't know, doesn't allow governors to serve consecutive terms). He outlined briefly the Virginia that he wants to see at that time, what he hopes to be able to say in his final speech. He wants us to focus on "getting results, not taking credit; on cooperation, not division." It may sound like common rhetoric from a common politician, but I believe Bob McDonnell is anything but a common politician. He's been a public servant for most of his adult life, and a patriot. I've yet to hear a harsh or divisive word from him, even during the most acrimonious moments of last year's campaign.

I heard someone say that a governor who doesn't face reelection has no incentive to do his job. I say, not having to face reelection means he is free simply to do his job. He's our governor now, and I look forward to the job he'll do.