After the deranged Jared Loughner was subdued in Tucson, it took virtually no time at all for Democrat Sheriff Clarence Dubnik to start blaming rhetoric on the right to have driven Loughner to his deed. As the story unfolded, there was no such evidence to support the sheriff’s claim. If anything, Loughner’s leanings were leftward.

When Nancy Pelosi led a group of fellow congressmen through a crowd of protesters, it wasn’t long before cries of racism were bandied about including the use of the “N” word no less than fifteen times. Andrew Breitbart offered a reward of $100,000 if anyone could provide audio or video proof of such a charge. Despite hundreds of cameras, video recorders, news organizations throughout the crowd, the reward remains unclaimed.

At several rallies hosted by Tea Parties and Glenn Beck numbering in the hundreds of thousands of attendees, this correspondent is not aware of any arrests. Protests outside of a private meeting hosted by conservative supporters the Koch brothers resulted in about twenty-five arrests out of a group of estimated at 800-1000. Here is an example of some of the civil discourse that the left is demanding.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdqG8znz8z

Lynching Clarence Thomas? Calling for killing members of the Supreme Court while giggling into the camera? This is the civil discourse that the left is demanding?

It seems pretty clear that the cry for civility emanating from the left is really a call to muzzle what the right has to say. The targets on that map on Sarah Palin’s website, were just like the targets on the Daily Kos website, both targeting, metaphorically speaking, Congresswoman Giffords. You probably heard about the one on Sarah Palin’s website all day long. How deep did you have to dig to hear that the far left website Daily Kos had a similar map utilizing targets? What about the website that identified the home address of a Walmart executive so that union protesters could go to his house to protest. Oh, and did I mention that the site included a target on the Walmart trademark “smiley.”

Instead of issuing a bogus call for civil discourse, why not put a ban on hypocrisy? Don’t ask those on the right to do one thing while the left has free rein. But then again if they banned hypocrisy, they would have precious little to say.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

I still find myself in awe of our Founding Fathers who created our form of government.  The competing ideas that they sifted through to come up with our Constitution and the safeguards in it is wondrous.  The designs upon it by the progressives is by equal measure disturbing.

The progressives envision a national government that they can dominate and that, in turn, will dominate us.  There is no activity over which they do not feel they can or should control.  Private property is a panacea, to keep the masses from open revolt, but they really believe that all wealth that is generated belongs to the government except for the portion they permit us to keep.  If you think that statement is unimaginable consider this.  How often do you hear, concerning the current debate over the Bush tax cuts, that we cannot afford them for the rich?  Think about it.  They say our government cannot afford to allow certain citizens of this country to continue to pay the same level of taxes in 2011 that they pay today.  That the government somehow has to pay for a tax cut, that actually isn’t even a cut but rather a continuation of what has existed for the last ten years.  How is getting less than you want a cost? If you awake on Christmas morning and do not find the present you have been hoping for under the tree, do you say, “Man, that’s gonna cost me?” Of course you do not.

A Massive Federal Government

Think about the many federal departments and agencies that exist today for which you will find no authorization in the Constitution: Education; Agriculture; Housing and Urban Development; Energy; Health and Human Services; Transportation.  Did they not have education in the eighteenth century? Are we more agrarian today than we were in 1789?  If not, why do we need a Department of Agriculture today, but the Founders didn’t see a need for it then?

The progressives are fighting for the continual concentration of functions at the federal level where the voices of the people are faint, but the voices of the special interests are robust and clear.  The branch of the federal government that is closest to the people is the House of Representatives.  But ponder how small your voice is in that chamber.  You are one of some 700,000 in your congressional district; your congressman or woman is one of 435 in the House of Representatives.  How do you get your voice heard at the federal level?  And yet Congress will tell you what kind of light bulb to buy or what kind of toilet you must flush.  Is this what our founding fathers envisioned?

The Bloody Revolution

To establish our country they fought a brutal revolution; a revolution where 50% of the mortal wounds were caused by bayonets.  Now that’s up close and personal.  It is not something they entered into lightly and a reading of the Declaration of Independence will tell you that they pledged their lives when they signed that document and their death warrants as well.  If captured by the British they surely would have been tried and executed for treason.

In designing our form of government they were very suspicious of strong central power and authority, having just thrown off one.  They did not trust government.  As Jefferson said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty.  When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”  Here is a simple test, do you fear the IRS or does the IRS fear you?

The Founders designed the Constitution to have strictly enumerated powers given to the federal government with all other powers retained by the states or the people.  They did not design a democracy, but a republic.  In that republic they built numerous checks and balances to prevent the accumulation of power. It has been the goal of the progressives to remove those checks and balances and put in place the tyranny that fears no people.

The Structure of the Federal Government

Among the balances they put in place was that the people would directly elect the members of the House of Representatives.  That is the body of government closest to the people.  If you recall the wording of the Tenth Amendment it speaks of the federal government, the states and the people.  The Senate was to be appointed by the state legislatures to represent their interests.  The president was to be elected, not by the people, but by the Electoral College.  Lastly, judges were to be appointed for life by the president with the advice and consent of the senate.  Why did they do this?  One reason is that they believed that if a proposed law had the backing of the majority of the people (House of Representatives) and a majority of the states (Senate) then it was probably a good thing, otherwise slow it down.  The fewer the number of laws, the greater our liberty.

The Progressives Attack

The progressives began their designs on the Constitution with the introduction of the income tax through the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913.  By allowing the government to tax incomes the government could now afford to greatly expand. However, to be able to expand it had to have the consent of the states, which was not likely to be granted.  So two months after the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified.  The Seventeenth Amendment called for the direct election of Senators, rather than having them appointed by the state legislatures.  The individual citizens picked up two more votes in the federal government, in most cases an even weaker voice than their Representative, and the states were shut out.

Do you think things such as unfunded mandates could pass in Congress if the states still chose the members of the Senate?  Social Security? Medicare? The Department of Education? The Department of Housing and Urban Development? And on and on?  Think of some of the more radical members of the Senate.  Do you think Al Franken would have been appointed by the Minnesota state legislature?  For many years in New York, the State Assembly was under the control of the Democrats but the State Senate was under the control of the Republicans.  The governorship passed back and forth between representatives of the two parties.   However, New York’s two Senators are Democrats and win reelection easily because of the concentration of Democrats mainly in New York City.  Could Hillary Clinton have moved into New York and immediately become its newest Senator with a Republican governor and Republican controlled State Senate? She was elected Senator from New York before she even moved out of the White House.  So instead of representing their state legislatures, Senate candidates focused on the population centers of their states to appeal directly to the people and to get elected and reelected.  The states were reduced from sovereign entities to subsidiaries of the federal government.

The Supreme Court

When Franklin Roosevelt was president he tried to pass his massive socialist programs but found that the Supreme Court was striking down many of his programs as being unconstitutional.  Roosevelt wanted to pack the court by increasing its membership from nine justices to fifteen.  He argued that the justices were old and over worked.  So he wanted to appoint a new justice for every existing justice that was seventy years or older.  His plan failed.  But when he broke with George Washington’s precedent and that of every president who followed him of serving no more than two terms, he was eventually able to appoint every justice to the Supreme Court.  So he got his way, it just took longer.

The Supreme Court can be considered the collateral damage of the Seventeenth Amendment.  The Justices of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate.  However once the Senators became directly elected by the people things changed.  Would a distinguished jurist like Robert Bork be treated as shamefully as he was by the lie filled speech of Ted Kennedy if Kennedy and Joe Biden weren’t doing the work of the pro-abortion lobby?  Would Clarence Thomas be subjected to the electronic lynching he faced if not for some Senators pandering to their special interest groups?  What we now have are potential Supreme Court justices who have learned that if you don’t want to get “Borked” keep your mouth shut during your confirmation hearings.  So we don’t know who we are going to get until a lifetime appointee is on the bench and then it is too late.

The 2000 Presidential Election

Who can forget the 2000 presidential election?  The Democrats still say Al Gore won, not because of Florida (he lost the election there, he lost the re-count, he lost the re-re-count) but because he won the popular vote.  The debates raged, why do we have an Electoral College?  The president should be elected by popular vote only. 

The argument follows the one made previously about the direct election of senators.  The Electoral College forces presidential candidates to campaign everywhere because everywhere counts.  There are at least three electoral votes to be had in every state.  The Founders were very concerned about balance.  They did not want the president just to be elected by the people of New York, Boston and Philadelphia, the large cities of that time.  Today, if the Electoral College was abolished the election would focus on the media  and population centers of New York, LA, San Francisco, Chicago and the large cities because that’s where it is easiest to get the message out and that is where the majority of the people are.  The progressives would put up pretty much the same candidates as they do today, perhaps more to the left.  This is their home turf and power base.  Instead of traveling around the country they could concentrate their time and money in a few large cities.  The Republicans would probably field candidates of a far more moderate stripe to not get hooted off the stage in New York.  Let me illustrate.

Electoral College vote Bush-Gore 2000

The Democrats claim Gore won in 2000 because he won the popular vote.  He lost in the Electoral College by five votes.  If you look at the breakdown of the states Gore won versus Bush, Gore took the Northeast, the Great Lakes area and the West Coast.  With the exception of New Mexico, Bush took everything else.

Let’s dial it down a level and look at who won at the county level.

Bush-Gore 2000 Winners by County

If you look at it at the county level, you could drive from the east coast to the west coast without entering a single county that Gore won.  You could do the same driving from Canada to Mexico.  But if popular vote was the metric, the man who won 80%-90% of the land mass of the United States would have lost.  Why should you not have a say, if you don’t live in a major population center?  It is not like Bush won in an Electoral College landslide and it is not like Gore absolutely trounced Bush in the popular vote.  The purpose of the Electoral College is to act as another brake on the tyranny of the majority.  

Where Do We Go From Here  

We are presently at a crossroads.  We have an electorate that is more knowledgeable, more aware, and more engaged than at any time in my memory.  We can continue to go down the socialist path toward a massive central government that takes all of our liberties for a measure of sustenance, or we can turn the tide and demand our liberties back.  

Let us begin by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

On this Fourth of July weekend we will have many opportunities to celebrate the genius of the founding fathers who created this country.  There is no other country like ours nor has their been.  It was and is a beacon of hope for people around the world who we welcome, those who come here legally, to help continue to build this great country.  Here is how Emma Lazarus described the new Statue of Liberty.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

by Emma Lazarus, New York City, 1883

Liberals vs. Conservatives

The most stark difference, I see, between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe in the individual and their right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, while liberals believe in groups.  And God help you if you stray from the Plantation of your group.  Groups, like blacks for instance, have “leaders”.  For years if you wanted to know what blacks thought about an issue you asked Jesse Jackson.  He would tell you what blacks thought and then he would tell blacks what they are supposed to think.  If your skin was black, you belonged in the group called “blacks” and Jesse Jackson was your leader, no independent thought, no dissension, he was it.  He would collect the money from the coffers of the guilt ridden whites, take his fair share, and preside over the distribution of the rest.  In return to access to power he would tell blacks to always vote Democratic. It was a very lucrative career for Jesse Jackson.  For blacks?  Not so much.

If you were so bold as to be a black with an independent mind such as Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Michael Steele, Janice Rogers Brown, J.C. Watts, and many more, watch out.  You were to be condemned in the vilest language imaginable for your failure to surrender your soul and pledge your fealty to the black leadership.

But this country was built on individual rights, the Pursuit of Happiness, not the guarantee of Happiness.  This country was not founded on the principles of taking from the successful and giving handouts to those who are not, either through misfortune or sloth.  Those suffering from misfortune were cared for by organized religion and charity.  Liberals believe that government should use its enormous power to steal from successful individuals and give to whoever they deem to be needy.  There is no clearer demonstration of this than in who gives to charity.

– Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). — RealClearPolitics

Consider for example, “Buck-a-Day” Biden, who gave an average of $1 per day to charity, although being a millionaire, with an annual salary of $174,000 per year.  In a formulation that liberals like to use, Joe Biden earns that much money before his head hits the pillow on New Year’s Day.  But he keeps virtually all of it and from his seat of power tells us how it is patriotic to pay more taxes to fund pork projects for his favored groups.

The Hunt for the Latest Escapee from the Plantation

Lieutenant Ben Vargas is a New Haven Connecticut firefighter.  He had the audacity to pass a test for promotion and fight for the promotion he won when the city of New Haven invalidated the test because no blacks made the cutoff.  You see, Ben Vargas is Hispanic and as such liberals have assigned him to the group that includes all Hispanics.  When not protesting how not every Hispanic is successful, Hispanics are required to fight for other groups if they are not all successful.  Ben Vargas stood up for his rights and was assaulted by a black man in the bathroom of Humphreys East Restaurant and ended up in the hospital.  Having wandered off the plantation, the Hispanic firefighters association publicly refused to back him up.

Lieutenant Vargas, who posted the sixth-highest score on the exam, was ridiculed as a token, a turncoat and an Uncle Tom — all of which, he said, “made my resolve that much stronger.” — NY Times, July 3, 2009

This case has achieved notoriety because of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.  This case came before her and was dismissed with little explanation.  The Supreme Court just overturned the decision 5-4.  Now Lieutenant Vargas is set to become Captain Vargas.  Here are his views:

“I consider myself an American — I was born and raised here,” he said in an interview on the porch of his home in the wooded suburb of Wallingford. “I love my people. I love my culture. I love our rice and beans, our salsa music, our language — everything my parents raised us with. But I am so grateful for the opportunity only the United States can give.”

That’s the American Dream.

The Constitution in the Hands of Activist Judges

President Barack Obama has made his first nomination to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor.  She has a great American personal story, not quite as great as Clarence Thomas, but a great one nonetheless.  Here is what Barack Obama said about Clarence Thomas and Justice Scalia.

“I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas,” said the presumptive Democratic nominee. “I don’t think that he…” the crowd interrupted with applause. “I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution. I would not have nominated Justice Scalia though I don’t think there is any doubt about his intellectual brilliance. Because he and I just disagree. — Barack Obama with Rick Warren

Much of the ballyhoo over Judge Sotomayor has been about her background.  No one, I repeat, no one has a more compelling story than Clarence Thomas, but when he was up for nomination, the ad hominem attacks were disgraceful.  Barack Obama doesn’t think Clarence Thomas is a strong enough jurist?  You may disagree with Clarence Thomas’ beliefs but remember the context of the question from Rick Warren.  Warren asked who on the Supreme Court Obama would not have nominated and out of the nine justices, he picked Thomas.  So Obama thinks Souter has a greater legal mind than Thomas? Or was Obama trying to score a twofer?  He can bash a conservative to score points on the left, while showing he is not a knee jerk Affirmative Action type by singling out the black guy, so he can score points with independents.  Let’s be clear, Obama rarely makes a public statement that is not calculated for effect.

President Obama is now trying to get his first nominee confirmed and to do so is pointing to the tradition that President’s should generally get who they want, unless there is a serious problem with the nominee.  However, while in the Senate, he had a different view as shown during the confirmation of Samual Alito.  Obama voted to filibuster that nomination.

“As we all know, there’s been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record.” — Barack Obama speech on why he was voting against Samual Alito.

With the nomination of John Roberts, Senator Obama clearly stakes out a position favoring judicial activism.  He said that in 95% of the cases following the Constitution is fine.  The other 5% of the time judges should feel free to re-write the constitution.

“The problem I face — a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts — is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”  — Barack Obama’s speech on why he was voting against John Roberts

Okay, so show me where Ruth Bader Ginsburg has voted with Antonin Scalia 95% of the time.  If you take what Obama says at face value, if they followed the Constitution 95% of the time, Ginsburg and Scalia would vote the same way.  Since Scalia plainly says his philosophy follows “original intent”, that is, adhering to the Constitution as written, Obama must be admitting that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a judicial activist since she rarely agrees with Scalia.

“A lot has been made about the Supreme Court and my criteria,” Obama said in a 20-minute speech to 250 of the night’s biggest donors. “I want people who have a common touch, who have a sense of what it’s like to struggle.”

He praised Sotomayor because she knows that “every once in a while, people need a hand up.” — Barack Obama speaking on why Sonia Sotomayor should be nominated to the Supreme Court

In this statement about Sotomayor, he confirms what he really believes that personal prejudices, and by that I mean “pre-judging”, are an essential element for a judge.  He believes the Constitution plays a role, but where the outcome is not pleasant, by all means re-write the Constitution to give you the outcome you want.  But once again Obama flip-flops:

“There are, of course, some in Washington who are attempting to draw old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor’s record. But I am confident that these efforts will fail; because Judge Sotomayor’s seventeen-year record on the bench – hundreds of judicial decisions that every American can read for him or herself – speak far louder than any attack; her record makes clear that she is fair, unbiased, and dedicated to the rule of law.” — Barack Obama’s weekly radio address.

First, I want to point to the Obama straw man, “some in Washington,” without naming who those some are.  So, here he says she is “fair, unbiased, and dedicated to the rule of law.”  Well, which one is it?  Biased, to swing those 5% of the cases that need a better outcome, or dedicated to the rule of law.

Teaching Moment

Judge Sotomayor’s nomination will probably be confirmed.  What conservatives must do is refrain from the name calling, any ad hominem attacks, and focus on whether or not she is a judicial activist or not.  The questioning should be respectful but unwavering.  Most Americans are opposed to activist judges.  The American people should be clearly informed that Justice Sotomayor is just that.  But if the long knives come out to damage her, that message will be lost, as will a valuable issue to use in the next election.  When adhering to conservative principles 60% of the American people are with us.  When we put up wishy washy candidates to appeal to groups, the Democratic playbook, we get slaughtered every time.

Wobbly Republicans

The drumbeat is starting.  The Democrats are gleefully opening their playbook to the right page and holding it open for the weak kneed Republicans to see.  “If you vote against Judge Sotomayor, the Hispanic vote will go against you and make you pay.”

Ah, the politics of class warfare.  Republicans fall for it almost every time.  That’s why we got John McCain as our nominee.  The news analysis will point out how fewer Hispanics voted for McCain than for Bush, with Bush getting 40% and McCain only 31%.  Maybe it was because McCain was a weak candidate?  Bush put forward Miguel Estrada for the Supreme Court, he appointed Alberto Gonzales as the first Hispanic Attorney General, McCain and Bush were both for open borders.  Boy, did that pay off!

Bush appoints Colin Powell as the first black Secretary of State, followed by Condoleezza Rice as the first black woman Secretary of State.  So how did the black vote turn out for Bush?

So let’s get over copying the Democratic practice of appealing to groups and get back to our conservative principles of appealing to individuals.  Don’t worry about the black vote, the Hispanic vote, the gay vote, the union vote, the Catholic vote.  Worry about doing the right thing for all Americans.  The Democrats want us to worry about all these blocs so that they can get us to meekly wave through their nominees.  But when the tables are turned (e.g., Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Miguel Estrada, et. al.) they will be vicious, slanderous, mean and ugly.  They don’t give a damn about offending the black or Hispanic vote because they think they own them.  And when we put up candidates that are a weak imitation of the Democratic candidate, they do.

We need to stand for Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness and not back down from that.  The votes will follow.

Throughout the presidential campaign there was an undercurrent of racism.  It bubbled up every time it looked like an issue could be effectively used against Barack Obama.  Talk about William Ayers?  You’re a racist.  Talk about Revered Wright?  You’re a racist.  Talk about ACORN?  Your a racist. Say you are not going to vote for Obama, then that proves you’re a racist.

What’s interesting is that the only people who talked about race and racism were the Democrats.  It was as if knowing that racism was receding to the darkest corners of society and withering and dying as it went, they had to resuscitate it and keep it alive.  One of the most powerful tools in their arsenal was looking about as potent as Jack La Lanne, at 94.

The Election Results

Barack Obama won the election for President of the United States with 53% of the popular vote.  That is a higher percentage than Bill Clinton got in either of his elections, while he had the hubris to call himself the first black president.  It was a higher percentage than Jimmy Carter got in 1976, the last Democratic presidential winner to garner more than 50% of the popular vote, with 50.1%.  You have to go back 44 years to Lyndon Johnson to find a Democrat that got a higher percentage of the popular vote.

Barack Obama and John McCain didn’t submit job applications to a committee, where Barack Obama might get a few extra points for being a minority.  He won in the popular vote and even more decisively in the Electoral College.  He even won three states from the old Confederacy (Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida). I think it’s fair to say that race wasn’t a significant factor.  He could not have won the race on the black vote alone and regardless of how other categories broke down, the fact remains he had to get substantial support from all groups in order for him to be close enough for the black vote to put him over the top.

Progress Has Been Ongoing

If you look around it was not just this one man who has succeeded, there are also many others:  Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Oprah Winfrey, Charles Rangel, Clarence Thomas, Douglas Wilder, Lynn Swan, J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, Kenneth Chennault, Reginald Davis, Tiger Woods, and on, and on.  So perhaps we can put the deck of race cards in the drawer and leave them there.

The Next Chapter

How Barack Obama plans to lead would typically be revealed in his inaugural address.  I would like to offer some text that he might consider including to set the tone for bringing the nation together:

“As I look out on this crowd of great Americans I can see in the distance the Lincoln Memorial.  It was there some forty-five years ago, another great American, Martin Luther King, Jr., addressed a large crowd.  In that speech he said,

‘I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’

As I stand here before you, I am humbled to think how momentous those words were then, and how great this country has become in the intervening forty-five years.  He also said:

‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.’

I was a little child when he said those words and I consider myself as much one of his children as his own flesh and blood.  So I say to you on this day, that we are about to write a new chapter, the fulfillment of that dream.  I pledged to bring change, to bring you hope, and to end partisanship and unite this country.  Therefore, I proclaim that we should end all Affirmative Action programs, and we should end them with two words:

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Including that message in his inaugural address would be on par with Kennedy’s “Ask Not….”  It would set him apart from the dull technocrats and bureaucrats and define his presidency.  Anyone want to wager if that will ever happen?

This Sunday morning brought the news that Colin Powell had endorsed Barack Obama.  This was deemed as anywhere from a major setback for the McCain campaign to the final nail in his political coffin.  However, to most people paying attention to Powell’s career this is not really a surprise.    Colin Powell’s is a great American story.  Someone who rose through the ranks to the top of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  He wasn’t a West Point graduate, but rather went to City College in New York and joined the Army Reserve Officers Training Corps.  His service is worthy of our admiration and gratitude.

Politically, Colin Powell is not a conservative.  He is an advocate of Affirmative Action and he is pro-abortion.  He didn’t campaign for black conservative candidates like Michael Steele in Maryland or Lynn Swan in Pennsylvania.  He didn’t speak out about the treatment of Clarence Thomas in his Supreme Court hearings and the way those hearings where conducted by Joe Biden.  So his endorsement of Obama should neither be surprising or earth shattering.

In his Sunday interview he “expressed displeasure with the direction of the Republican Party.”  This, according to the New York Times, was “another dispiriting setback to Republicans.”  Really?  When do Republicans win elections and when do they lose them?

When Republicans remain true to conservative principles they tend to win elections.  When they move to the center to appeal to moderates they tend to lose.  Why is that?

A Battleground poll taken this past August shows it quite clearly.  When  asked the question, “When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be…”

1. Very Conservative
2. Somewhat Conservative
3. Moderate
4. Somewhat Liberal
5. Very Liberal
6. Unsure or refused to answer

The poll results were:

• Very Conservative — 20%
• Somewhat Conservative — 40%
• Moderate — 2%
• Somewhat Liberal — 27%
• Very Liberal — 9%
• Unsure/Refuse to Answer — 3%

What is most interesting is that only 2% consider themselves to be moderate, and yet conservatives are being repeatedly counseled to reach out to moderates.  Why put forth all that effort for 2% of the population?  If you combine the first two categories, those who consider themselves to be conservative or very conservative, it totals 60% of the population.  Republicans should be able to win elections all day long with those numbers.

The Battleground Poll is a well respected bipartisan poll jointly conducted by a Democratic polling group and a Republican polling group.  What is even more interesting is that they include this question in every survey, and the results have been very consistent over time.  In the thirteen Battleground polls taken between June 2002 and August 2008, those who consider themselves conservatives have ranged from a low of 58% to a high of 63%, pretty consistent indeed.

When Republicans stick to core conservative principles they generally win elections.  When they took control of Congress for the first time in forty years it was because they ran on Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America.  It advocated smaller government, personal responsibility, tort reform and term limits among other things.  This resonated with people who are fed up with Washington and a government that grows without bound.  When they got in power and started spending like liberals, they got tossed out on their butts, as well they should.  If the choice in the voting booth is between a professional liberal (Democrats) and the amateur liberal (moderate Republicans) most folks are going to go with the pro.

Reagan, the truest conservative won the Presidency twice, and easily.  George Bush senior won his first term and then raised taxes breaking his “Read My Lips” pledge.  Out he went.  Clinton won two terms and neither time garnered a majority of the popular vote.  George W. Bush ran as a conservative and won two terms, but they were close races.  Why?  He talked about being a “compassionate conservative” which many took as a code word for being a moderate and not that great a difference from the Democrats.

The untold story is that a significant majority of Americans consider themselves conservative and the closer the candidate adheres to conservative principles (e.g., Reagan) the larger the margin of victory.  The further they move a way, the closer the final tally.