The RNC is finally figuring out what the people have known for several years, that Bush is a complete failure as a leader and has no personal political convictions.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008
EXCLUSIVE: RNC draft rips Bush’s bailouts
Ralph Z. Hallow (Contact)
EXCLUSIVE:

In what would amount to a slap in the face to a sitting Republican president and the party’s Senate and House leaders, national GOP officials, including the vice chairman of the Republican National Committee, are sponsoring a resolution opposing the resort to “socialist” means to save capitalism.

“We can’t be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms,” said Solomon Yue, a cosponsor of a resolution that would put the RNC — the party’s national governing body — on the record as opposing the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries.

Republican National Vice Chairman and constitutional law attorney James Bopp Jr. authored the resolution and is asking the rest of the 168 voting members of the committee to sign it.

“The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama’s proposed public works program and supports conservative alternatives,” while encouraging the RNC “to engage in vigorous public policy debates consistent with our party platform,” Mr. Bopp said.

The RNC has never played a leading policy role or any policy role except once every four years in framing the national party platform, which is quickly forgotten and almost never referred to for another four years.

See related story: Jeb Bush Senate bid a GOP remedy?

“Jim Bopp is the author of the no-bailout resolution because he wants to articulate our core principles now, not every four years when we have a presidential election,” said Mr. Yue, an Oregon member of the Committee. “This is based on the thinking that articulating political philosophy is equally important as applying it consistently.”

“Failing to do so, we have today’s identity crisis, which resulted in our losses in 2006 and 2008,” Mr. Yue said. “The bailout is a good example … In my view, if we are not going to address this, we will see more losses in 2010.”

North Dakota GOP Chairman Gary Emineth said he too has had enough of the never-ending disconnect between what the platform says and what elected Republicans do.

“It is time the party gets involved in policy issues and forces candidates to respond to the platform,” Mr. Emineth said. “Frankly the way we view the platform is a joke. We work hard to drive our principles into the platform, then candidates ignore it.”

“If the party doesn’t move in this direction, we will continue to be irrelevant. Whoever has the larger star power will continue to win, and what they stand for and believe will become less relevant,” Mr. Emineth said.

Mr. Bopp, Mr. Yue and the other cosponsors say they have the numbers to pull off this rebellion, unprecedented in the history of either party’s national committee.

“We have enough co-sponsors to take this to the RNC floor” at the party’s Jan. 28-31 annual winter meeting in Washington. “I will take it to the Resolutions Committee, but I intend to press this issue to the floor for decision.”

To the astonishment of most rank-and-file Republicans, hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts of private-sector companies were pushed through Congress last month by President Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr.

Just as astonishing, the Senate and House GOP leaders and the party’s presidential nominee supported the bailout of the financial industry, which in some cases took the form of the U.S. government’s gaining ownership of huge but financially troubled companies.

Nonetheless, not all RNC members — including some of Mr. Bopp’s fellow conservatives — are pleased with the idea of having it make policy instead of simply minding the campaign fundraising store.

Fellow RNC member Ron Nehring, chairman of the California GOP, expressed more reservations.

“We have to be careful not to confuse passing resolutions for action, or creating a situation where people interpret the lack of some resolution as an excuse for inaction on an important issue,” he said.

Historically, the elected GOP House and Senate leaders, plus the president and his advisers when the party controls the White House, make national party policy. The RNC’s sole job has been to raise money for candidates and to pass the party line down the food chain to state and local leaders.

The same has been true for the Democratic National Committee.

The Bopp-Yue vanguard say they are determined to change that.

“For the past eight years, the RNC has been the political outreach of the White House,” said Arizona GOP Chairman Randy Pullen, another resolution cosponsor who opposed what he regarded as Mr. Bush’s pro-amnesty immigration bill and his “economic policies promoting the ‘ownership society’ because they would eventually lead to the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing.”

“It is now time for the RNC to assert itself in terms of ideas and political philosophy,” Mr. Pullen added. “If we don’t do it now, when will we?”

Mr. Bopp, a social conservative who has served as counsel to pro-life groups, said, “We must stand for and publicly advocate our conservative principles as a party 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days of the year.”

The RNC revolutionaries leave no doubt they mean to turn the committee into policy-producing and enforcing machine.

“In the long-run, we want to see this committee play an active philosophical-policy leadership role for the national GOP,” Mr. Yue said.

But it remains unclear whether there exist the rules or the machinery for enforcing such a resolution on Republican elected officials.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/30/rnc-pushes-unprecedented-criticism-of-bailouts/

Just listened to Obama’s speech where he talked about how “compassionate” and “caring” we all should be.  I have a simple, sincere, serious question:

Who is more “compassionate” and “caring”…those who want the government to take care of everyone, or those who are willing to take care of their neighbors themselves?

It brings us back to the book that came out a couple of years ago (Who Really Cares? ) that showed definitively that Conservatives not only donate more to charity as a percentage of income, regardless of the level of that income, but they are also more likely to participate in charitable, and specifically secular charitable, activities.

So what does compassion have to do with big government liberalism (which is most decidedly what Obama is pushing for: higher taxes on the rich, univeral health care, fleecing “Big Everything)

OK…A little healthy, or unhealthy, mix of entertainment and political theory. Bear with me.

Believe it or not, I’ve put a lot of thought lately (meaning about the last 4 years or so) into how important it is for us to think deeply about why we believe what we believe, and why seeing different perspectives is not only useful, but absolutely necessary to put our own views in their proper context.

With that in mind, let me reiterate what I’ve pointed out in a previous post, and this will likely become a recurring theme of mine:

Maybe the problem is that the “Conservative” three-legged stool should NOT be:

• Free Markets
• Christian Fundamentalism
• Peace through Strength.

But should instead be:

• Limited and Enumerated Government
• Community and Family Values
• National Sovereignty

…Without this perspective Conservatives look like either: 1) warmongers, 2) greedy money-grubbers, or 3) fanatic proselytes. (As opposed to Environmentalist Wackos, Feminazis, and Peaceniks)…

The above was my ranting about the quick narrowing of alternatives on the Republican side of the ticket for the Presidency, however, there are several things that I have observed over the last 6 weeks or so that has crystallized my thinking even further. Those events were these:

A trip to Richmond to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Capitol where the most striking moment of the day (for me anyway) was reading this inscription on the statue of Robert E Lee, planted six steps into the chambers where he actually stood to say these words:

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention:

Profoundly impressed with the solemnity of the occasion, for which I must say I was not prepared, I accept the position assigned me by your partiality. I would have preferred had your choice fallen upon an abler man. Trusting in Almighty God, an approving conscience, and the aid of my fellow-citizens, I devote myself to the service of my native State, in whose behalf alone will I ever again draw my sword.

Now, I had heard that quote before, but seeing it on his statue right there in the Chambers put a huge lump in my throat. I stood speechless for a moment and tried to understand what he must have gone through. I sincerely hope I never REALLY have to understand it. If any reading this has not read a thorough history of Robert E Lee, then we will have a hard time having a conversation about what it truly means to be an American. He is in my mind one of our great Patriots. If you think that’s just crazy, well…too bad.

Another “event” was catching (sporadically) back episodes of Jericho on HD and the new season on CBS. Never has a fictional show made me think more about the role of my Federal Government. If you haven’t watched this show…please do so. Regardless of your political perspective, it’s an excellent warning about how dangerous it is for us to place so much authority and responsibility on bureaucrats hundreds and even thousands of miles away.

Add to the above (in random order): The SCOTUS taking on the DC gun ban; Newt Gingrich’s speech at CPAC; a local project I worked on titled–”Ensuring a Sense of Community in Loudoun County” (long story); of course, the unlikely successes and lack thereof, of Governor Huckabee; and lastly a few chapters into “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg…

…And I have come to the conclusion that what is really missing from the “Conservative movement,” the “Reagan Coalition,” or perhaps a NEW collective, starts with fundamental belief in the following:

• Having strong self-reliant communities where simple (dare I say “traditional”) values of that community are encouraged and supported by neighbors instead of enforced by the Government.
• A simple and direct foreign (and border) policy, which certainly respects the sovereignty of other countries, but first and foremost places our OWN sovereignty, safety, and indeed prosperity on the TOP of the priority list (as we would expect other countries to put THEIR rights and THEIR welfares on top of THEIR priority list).
• A health, education, and welfare system with a “bottom-up” approach instead of a “top-down” approach, where States, local communities, and families have ALL of the authority and all of the responsibility over the health, education, and welfare of their citizens and families. The Federal Government’s role in these areas would be limited to that of promoting “best practices” among the Republic, and would instead focus its attention on that which is in its purview, including the task of making sure that fundamental Constitutional rights of individual citizens are not infringed upon.

Am I simply in a dream world, or do these sound like universally Constitutional and classically liberal values? If not, what am I missing? Are these concepts outdated? Impossible in a “modern world”?  If they are appropriate–why is it that these values have been completely lost on the leadership of both major political parties?

And lastly? What can be done about this disconnect?

If anyone was under the delusion that Huckabee is just way too “Progressive” then they should probably think twice before recommending that Governor Pawlenty of Minnesota take that VP spot. 

George Will takes a look at a few other options, and ends it with a small sales pitch for Governor Pawlenty who he considers “a center-right politician in a center-right country.”  Sigh…(eyes rolling).  Lord knows we couldn’t have one of those pesky Christians occupying the White House.  It’s apparently better to have a blatantly liberal Republican than a Christian Conservative who has the audacity to at some point be a preacher.   It’s amazing how we can overlook pure left-wingness to castigate “Christian Populists”.

However, in the same article that George Will lumps together Huckabee and Edwards, I did find this little gem (sort of off-topic):

Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as households with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category than in 1979 — because the percentage of Americans earning more than $100,000 has doubled from 12 to 24, while the percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. “So,” Rose says, “the entire ‘decline’ of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder.” Even as housing values declined in 2007, the net worth of households increased.

Yet another example of someone who only understands their little portion of Conservatism and chooses to ignore the rest.

Someone help me come up with a good name for Libertarians posing as Conservatives. Maybe CINOs, or Libervatives…

I really wanted this guy to run for President.  I was shocked and appalled at the way he was treated by the FEC ala McCain/Feingold, and will always wonder what could have been.  At the CPAC last week Newt had clear and concise ideas for the Conservative Government.

It is probably one of the most instructive speeches outlining truly logical Conservatism I’ve heard in quite a while.  Three very interesting things struck me as inevitable for the survival of the Conservative movement:

1) Declaration of Independence from the Republican Party.
2) A halt with the obsession of the Oval Office and all that Washington for our leadership.
3) A renewed focus on Conservative GOVERNMENT instead of packaged consultant-driven campaigns.

So in other words:

1) A movement of ideas and not personalities.
2) Bottom-up politics instead of top-down–starting with Boards of Supervisors, etc.
3) Keeping our promises and earning the America’s trust.

Anyway, you gotta see the whole thing…