An Objective View of the Tea Party Movement

I'll preface this by saying that I've never attended a Tea Party demonstration. I do like the initial principles that were espoused by the Tea Party: limiting government, promoting free enterprise, and protecting individual freedom. I am skeptical about where this movement may be headed, given the philosophical predilictions of those who have jumped on board with the Tea Partiers in recent months.

Anyway, I'm going to take a look at the Tea Party, where it can do a lot of good, and what it needs to do to avoid being "hijacked" by people who don't understand the true principles of the movement.

Let's be real, here...the Tea Party Movement is too large to be considered a bunch of "fringe right-wing wingnuts". This movement is something that has appeal to conservatives, libertarians, and third-way/centrist Democrats who saw the prosperity that came with the 1990's and the continuation of non-expansionist government policy.

There are those who think that it is a racist movement, since it is anti-Obama. I'm a bit tired of this rhetoric. As long as Obama is black, there will always be someone who claims any attempt to push back against his agenda is rooted in some kind of blatantly racist motive. Since Obama will always be black, there will always be someone who pulls the race card to discredit the push-back.

While I'm sure there are those who may hold such sentiments within the movement (as there are in all political parties), it is an obviously small minority. There are too many people who favor the Tea Party principles that it isn't some kind of tiny fringe group who happen to make a lot of noise. Get over it, race-baiters, the Tea Party principles of good, limited government are more in line with Ron Paul than with Pat Robertson, despite what others may want you to think.

While many may knock Sarah Palin, she said some things that many people across the majority of the political spectrum (except for dedicated "progressives"). In fact, I was watching MSNBC after Palin's speech, and they had the always-thinking Lionel talking about what Palin said. I do not remember who was hosting the post-speech commentary, but I know it was someone who was a part of the left (I think it was Ed Schultz, but I could be wrong). However, Lionel told the host that in Palin's speech "she said things that, if it wasn't Sarah Palin saying them, you would agree with."

Palin's general stance on the fact that government should roll back it's size and scope is one that many, many people can agree with. Given Palin's populist appeal, she can be a lightning rod for the Tea Party Movement to push forward with more support.

The movement (and using Palin as a lightning rod) is not without faults, though.

First of all, the Tea Party Movement (in principle) should really have nothing to do with religion. However, using Palin as a lightning rod will naturally attract a lot of social conservatives. The same social conservatives who supported the Republicans who allowed government spending and budget deficits to expand on their watch for 6 years under George W. Bush. If we want to move in a different direction, we have to change fiscal thinking and reduce government's size and scope. This will require moving away from the social issues, as they are not part of the Tea Party's principles.

There are those who want to push very "Christian" ideals in the Tea Party (I guess sensing an opportunity to "start over and get it right" in their opinion). Some of the ideas I've heard tossed around have involved pushing Christianity in schools (or "keeping God in school"). I've found this to be odd, because all through my 13 years of primary education, I only found "God" to be a part of school twice...once, in Kindergarten, at a Lutheran school...and the other in 8th grade, at a Catholic school. The rest of the time, I was in public school, and I don't remember there being a God to remove...so how can we put him back if he wasn't there in the first place?

OK, obviously I was going for a little humor there, but the point is made. We can teach kids the basic morals of civilized society (which yes, I do believe are derived from religious beliefs of many different kinds...which goes to show you that religions aren't as different as some may think). Most of the people who are pushing these things are new to the Tea Party, and see it as some kind of new conservative party, instead of a push for fundamental change in governmental philosophy back to the foundation set by our founding fathers.

Secondly, the Tea Partiers must recognize that the Republicans are jumping on board because the concepts of limited government and personal freedom (sound familiar libertarians?) are part of the core of conservatism (see the Reagan quote in the subtitle of this blog)...which the Republicans moved away from over the past decade or so. They know to win back the populous, they need to adopt these aspects of the Tea Party. However, those who hold true to the Tea Party's principles need to make the politicians move to them, and not the inverse.

See, if they move towards the Republican Party in it's current state, you're moving towards such politicians as Tom Tancredo (whose stance on immigration is more than just anti-illegal immigrant), the hardline SoCons (who want to ban gay marriage and all abortions, as well as bring about more theocratic philosophy), and RINOs.

So I warn the Tea Party...stick to the principles that the majority of people believe in (which is a mostly libertarian-based philosophy with some conservative elements). Keep government's size and scope in check, allow for free enterprise for all, a strong national defense that is for defensive purposes (emphasis on "defensive"), and reforms of ineffective government policies (like current immigration laws).

Otherwise, you will allow the more extreme elements that have joined your movement to allow you to continue to be marginalized by politicians and the media elite.

As for Palin for President in 2012? I doubt it. She is better in her role as a spokesperson and rally artist for a governmental philosophy, but I do not necessarily see her as a leader of a nation, as she carries a lot of negative baggage. Then again, if she can prove to me that she is a better candidate in 2012 than she was in 2008, I might change my mind. However, right now, I can't say that I could go with her as a potential presidential candidate.

On that note (2012), I would like to see Ron Paul run for President again, but that's just me :)

**Addendum To This Post - 8:16 PM**

Leslie Carbone, one of my favorite intellectuals anywhere, addresses some of my same concerns in her latest post, "The Problem With Palin", and brings up a few new issues as well.

Zogby: The GOP Could Win Back the Senate in 2010

This is certainly interesting, given that many of us (including myself) thought that the President would deliver a solid bounce in popularity for the Democratic Party with his State of the Union address and subsequent media appearances (meeting with House GOP members, the townhall speeches, etc...).

However, this would require a lot of pieces falling in the right place, as well as the right candidates running. The "right" candidates (in terms of chances of winning in November) include undecided former Governors Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin (who is surprisingly leading Russ Feingold in recent polling) and George Pataki in New York (who leads Kristen Gillibrand).

While I doubt this situation pans out for an out-and-out GOP Senate takeover, it certainly does put the Dems on notice...and calls Obama's ability to deliver popular support through his speeches into question.

Failing to Recognize the Situation

The left is apparently crowing about the Q&A session Obama had with House Republicans because he stood up to them and lectured them and claimed he was not an ideologue and so forth...

They fail to recognize that if the House GOP members really wanted to grill Obama, they would do so. However, if they were gang up on the President and attack him like they want to, it would be an even worse PR move than letting the President have his way with them in a verbal fashion.

If they really went after him, the lefty talking heads and media would say things like "they cornered Obama like a pack of rabid wolves!" and "the way they treated the President was classless and sickening!"

So while Obama did a good job taking advantage of the situation, don't get too excited, my friends on the left...it's not like the GOP had any better options of approach.

How Quickly the Landscape and Mood Changes

Paradigm shifts can be felt in many ways, and sometimes there is no better thermometer than the blogosphere. A quick glance around shows these things...

- Virginia Virtucon reports that MSNBC had it's highest ratings ever. I know that I probably watched more consecutive minutes of that channel than ever before (though I do tune in regularly to take the pulse of the opposition). I watched a bit of that channel last night to simply see the left's reactions, and it appears that many conservatives did the same. From what I saw, Howard Dean was gracious in his admission of party screw-ups all around in Mass. Rachel Maddow was fiery and clearly angry. So angry that even Chris Matthews was taken aback by some of her commentary.

- Many left bloggers think that this is because they did not pass health care "reform". If people are against what you are proposing (which they seem to dismissively admit to), why would they support you if you had already passed said reform? If anything, passing health care reform is like pushing the self-destruct button on all of Congress.

- Bearing Drift is hearing rumors that Rep. Rick Boucher (VA-9) is reconsidering running for reelection (something many Dems are doing, especially after last night's win for the GOP). Given that he is a bit of an oddity in terms of political affiliation vs. district demographics, he would be the only Dem that would really stand a chance in the "Fighting 9th" this year. If Boucher goes, the Dem control of that seat goes with it. Given the vulnerability of Glenn Nye and Tom Perriello in the 2nd and 5th Districts, respectively, and the possibility of a hard fight in the 11th (Gerry Connolly's district), the Dems cannot afford to have to pump a lot of money into a 4th fight in this state, as it will really spread party resources thin.

The Republican Liberty Caucus Endorsed Steve Hunt???

WHY? I must've missed this one.

I know Hunt has good conservative credentials on fiscal matters, but his social views do not really jive with the RLC's platform, which is rooted in more of a libertarian-style social ideology.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around that one, because it doesn't quite make sense given the stances of the RLC on some issues conflict with Hunt's.

C'mon Shenandoah County GOP, Keep Up!

The ShenCo GOP website hasn't been updated since before November's election! I know that the GOP is firmly the dominant party in the county, but let's keep this ball rolling!

More Moronic Messages from Marsden

Crystal Clear Conservative puts up the latest evidence of Dave Marsden using empty platitudes and basic fearmongering of Republicans (ooooh, scary boogeymen Republicans, oooooh!) to try to appeal to voters in the 37th District special election.

Three problems with Marsden's "case" for election

- Bob McDonnell's campaign proved that people want to hear about solutions, not simply about how evil the other party is (OMG! Repugz are Social Conservativz, they hate teh gayz n women! = Creigh Deed's message in a nutshell).
- If Marsden loses, there is no change in the make up of the State Senate, as this is already held by a Republican (AG-elect Ken Cuccinelli). So the Senate still remains in Dem control by the same margin.
- There is NO mention of why Marsden is a better candidate (other than party name, which means NOTHING in the current political climate) or why Steve Hunt is not a good candidate.

Ouch, Mr. Speaker!

Not Only Are Dem Incumbents Retiring, Some Are in Real Trouble

The Washington Times reports that beyond the seats of the retiring Chris Dodd and Byron Dorgan, 6 other Senate seats currently held by Dems are going to have major problems holding onto their seats. They are...

- Senate Majority Leader Harry "The Weasel" Reid of Nevada, who is now trailing badly in recent polls.
- Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, who sold out her vote on the health care bill, and cannot break 41 percent in any poll with any of her 4 potential GOP challengers.
- Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat now trails Congressman Pat Toomey in the latest Rasmussen polls, and is not highly favored by Pennsylvanians.
- Kristen Gillibrand of New York, who is only ahead of George Pataki by o.2% in the latest RCP poll aggregation.
- Michael Bennet of Colorado is trailing former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton by almost 10 points.
- There is a open race in Ohio where former Congressman Rob Portman leads Ohio Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher by 7 points in the latest polls there.

8 potential Senate pick-ups for the GOP here...they have an opportunity to really close the gap. Let's just hope that Steele and Company don't fumble the ball here.

Worth Some Worry, But Don't Hit "Panic" Yet

Tertium Quids and Virginia Virtucon have both reported that Sen. Walter Stosch told Goochland Republicans that we "have to have more taxes this year".

While that is a worrisome statement, I wouldn't hit the panic button yet.

See, first of all, the House is solidly Republican again...and fiscally conservative for the most part. They have already declared Gov. Kaine's budget DOA. The Senate is already slightly tilted towards the Dems, who would support such a measure.

Last, but not least, the Governor-elect is a Republican. It's up to him to sign off on new taxes. Being that Bob McDonnell is not nearly as quick to raise taxes as Mark Warner is, I wouldn't start the panic of higher taxes just yet.

Michael Steele...Punting on 2nd Down?

It appears so, says Bearing Drift. How lame is that. Basically saying you don't think you can take the House this year. Yes, it's highly unlikely because the gap is too big...but sweet Jesus, you don't go out and say that. What kind of message does that convey?

I swear, the GOP is like the Washington Redskins pre-Mike Shanahan...a lot of potential, a lot of good pieces in place, but the leadership is either ineffective or just flat-out sucks.

Searching for a Candidate to Endorse in the VA-5 GOP Primary

It's a crowded field to earn the right to challenge Tom Periello in November, 2010. After reviewing the viewpoints of all 7 candidates, I'm still stuck.

I have narrowed the field of 7 down to 3...Ron Ferrin, Jim McKelvey, and Michael McPadden. All 3 seem to be committed to a constitutional approach. Ferrin and McPadden have pro-life stances, though McPadden's stance is to make abortion law something that the public votes on (much like in Europe). McKelvey hasn't mentioned any "social" issues, and both Ferrin and McPadden don't go beyond the abortion argument on social issues.

I believe that all 3 of these candidates would be very good at standing by limited government principles as well as stand for pro-liberty ideals (compared to the other candidates).

Now, if someone can make a convincing case for one of these three (or one of the other 4), I would greatly appreciate it. I'm a bit stuck right now.

The Difference

The difference between Republicans and conservatives. Poignant stuff, I highly suggest you read it and the article it is derived from.

GOP Liberty Caucus at Odds With NRSC

At least, that is the impression I was left with from this blog post at the RLC. The blog post, put up by Aaron Biterman, is dead on with it's assessments, though.

A headline in this week’s Tampa Tribune is titled “GOP infighting shakes party”. The article talks about a familiar 2009 theme: “An increasingly fractious challenge to the Republican Party from its own conservative base could relegate the party to indefinite minority status,” says author William March.

Yes, a familiar theme from the MSM...the GOP must move to the center, the Dems must move left.

No state has more of a fight on its hands than Florida, where Republican Party Chair Jim Greer has, no doubt, acted illegally to prop up his favorite candidates and help his friends defeat his enemies. This was already clear when Greer had his cronies boot Republican Liberty Caucus members from the party in September. Now there are increasingly vocal calls for Greer to resign as party boss.

Considering that it's usually the moderate candidates who lose, and the principled candidates seemed to keep their jobs for the most part after 2006 and 2008, you'd think that the non-moderates would be given a few more opportunities. Jim Greer should lose his job...you don't kick out the guys who, with their fiscally conservative principles, actually capture the growing mood of the populous.

After knocking the NRSC for supporting moderate candidates in GOP primaries (instead of supporting the nominated candidate), the RLC goes after Karl Rove.

Whatsmore, the NRSC is now encouraging its readers to take advice from Karl Rove. In an e-mail the NRSC sent out yesterday, its Communications team forwarded an article from Karl Rove to all NRSC subscribers. Rove’s article was published in The Wall Street Journal, and the NRSC team said it’s a “WSJ Editorial You Should See”.

I saw it, and — shock! — I am not impressed.

Why is the NRSC encouraging its members to listen to Karl Rove? Rove’s name has come up in many political scandals, including the Valerie Plame affair, the Bush White House e-mail controversy and the dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. Moreover, his strategy of “compassionate conservatism” along with his support of the Bush Doctrine are among the main reasons why Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008.

In the article, Rove says, “In Connecticut, Sen. Chris Dodd trails former Republican Rep. Rob Simmons 35% to 48% in the latest Quinnipiac poll.” Rove does not acknowledge that two other Republican candidates also poll ahead of Chris Dodd: Linda McMahon and RLC-endorsed candidate Peter Schiff. This “ignore at all costs” strategy has been something that Republican establishment candidates have been very skilled at, but has not yielded successful results.

Linda McMahon automatically gets my endorsement. Those who know me know why ;) In fact, I will add that endorsement soon (though I do think she is an excellent candidate on many issues). The blog closes out with this succinct statement.

The NRSC cannot be allowed to select Republican Senate candidates for GOP primary voters.

Registered Republicans in CA, CT, FL, IL, KY, and other states should select the best candidate to represent the state — without NRSC interference.

This is certainly a firebrand blog post with a lot of truth in it. However, the GOP needs to tread carefully. I don't know how well a conservative candidate like Chuck DeVore will do in California, where Carly Fiorina is already ahead of Barbara Boxer in early polling and the electorate tends to lean moderate-to-left in the populated areas.

I think Rubio will give Crist a run for his money in Florida. Also, I think Rand Paul should get a ton of support in his primary campaign given that he is the son of the RLC's favorite son, and he should have a great shot at taking Jim Bunning's soon-to-be-open seat.

Bottom line of advice to the NRSC (and the NRCC)...don't ignore the conservatives and the conservatarians.

Running for Office Tip # 167

"Keep your campaign debts paid"

Apparently, 87th House District challenger John Amiral has skipped town and owes a number of people some money (including thousands to media outlets in campaign ads), and was fined by the State Board of Elections for failing to file his final campaign finance report. According to a GOP official, he is in Azerbaijan visiting family. The official did stress that if Amiral is in debt, he needs to get these debts taken care of, and that leaving them unpaid reflects poorly upon the party.

Gotta pay those bills and file those reports, John...those are pretty important functions for an elected official.

(h/t Vivian Paige)

Ron Paul for Senate or Governor in 2010?

I'm hearing rumors of both. Would be interesting if Kay Bailey Hutchinson does indeed step down. Then again, if she doesn't step down until after 2010, current Texas Governor Rick Perry would be waiting in the wings as well, and he's got solid approval ratings and a pretty decent campaign machine behind him.

I like Perry, I also like Ron Paul, though there are some differences between them and there are some different reasons why I like each of them...both seem to have a pretty good handle on the Constitution and the limits it places on the federal government.

Tea Partiers and Christian/Social Conservatives...Not the Same Thing

I love how some on the left automatically consider them the same thing.

Tea Partiers are more economically/fiscally conservative types. The Tea Party movement has really nothing to do with social conservatism. At it's core, it's really more of a semi-libertarian sentiment in the sense that social issues are not part of the issue (as they shouldn't be). It is a call for a reduction in government intervention in our pockets and in our lives.

Social and Christian conservatives have more of a social issue agenda. They are against gay marriage, abortion, sex education beyond abstinence, etc..., which require government intervention in many ways. While many do agree with the Tea Party movement's goals of limited government, they do favor some government intervention that many others in the Tea Party movement may not.

You can't lump them in as being the same. Social conservatives had a hero in George Bush, who was no patron saint of small-government conservatives. The Tea Party movement, in and of itself, has nothing to do with social issues. It is a "reduce government" movement.

Where the two overlap (in a Venn Diagram sense) is to put an end to rampant government spending, kowtowing to other nations for no reason other than "image", increases in regulation, and enviro-socialist policies. However, many in the Tea Party movement are not social or christian conservatives. They are people who simply believe that government has gone out of control with power and spending.

Rand Paul Promises to Introduce Downsize DC Agenda

This the stuff I want to hear! Time to break out the old endorsement panel for the son of liberty's best friend.

The agenda includes...

The Read The Bills Act (make Congress read the bills before they debate and vote)
The One Subject At a Time Act (keep all amendments germane to the bills)
The Write the Laws Act (make Congress write the laws, instead of allowing unelected bureaucrats to do so)

Also, Rand Paul promised to co-sponsor the Enumerated Powers Act (force federal government to obey the 9th and 10th Amendments), and reintroduce the Fiscal Responsibility Act (cut Congressional pay each year we run a budget deficit, cuts grow larger in consecutive deficit years).

Deroy Murdock Talks About "Restoring Reaganism"

In his featured article at the National Review, columnist Deroy Murdock talks about how the GOP can get back to a more consistent, conservative base and how to eliminate those who have led the party to where it is today. Here's some excerpts and my own opinions regarding some of Murdock's better points...

The GOP has been laid low, thanks to politicians who swapped their principles for power and lost both. As the chief electoral vehicle for conservative and free-market ideas, the Republican party cannot regain America’s confidence —nor should it — until the guilty have been cast into the nearest volcano.

Amen to that. The party members should throw out the bums who put them into the minority.

Comrade George W. Bush has spearheaded the most aggressive federal expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As a delivery system for socialism, he has been the most effective Trojan Horse since that pine steed rolled into Troy.

When Bush arrived, Washington consumed 18.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Uncle Sam now devours 22.5 percent of the economy, reported Jon Ward in the October 19 Washington Times. “The country has gone from a $128 billion budget surplus when Mr. Bush took office to a deficit of at least $732 billion in fiscal 2009,” Ward writes. “No president since FDR — who offered a New Deal to pull the nation out of the Great Depression and then fought World War II — has presided over as rapid a growth in government when measured as a percentage of the total economy.”

Ouch, Mr. President. Looks like you forgot the conservatism part of "compassionate conservatism".

While much of Bush’s spending has funded defense and the War on Terror, most of it vanished into the furnaces of No Child Left Behind, the 2002 Farm Bill, the 2003 Medicare drug entitlement, the 2005 highway bill, the 2006 ethanol mandate, at least 69,341 earmarks, and much, much more. In 2001, Bush launched federal embryonic stem-cell research. By 2008, he added the word “nationalization” to the American vocabulary, and underscored it with nearly $1 trillion in bailouts and Third World—-style government ownership stakes in banks and financial houses.

Bush has kept America safe from terror attacks since September 11. The liberations of Afghanistan from bin Ladenism and Iraq from Ba’athism were vital victories for national security and human rights. Until this year’s mortgage meltdown, his tax cuts fueled robust growth. Good work.

Nevertheless, Bush is the GOP’s Jimmy Carter, a weak bumbler who embarrassed his constituents, betrayed his philosophical movement, sank his party, and eventually surrendered the White House to the opposition, this time led by the Senate’s Number One liberal, still in his first term. Bush should retire quietly to Texas, where he can drive his truck, chop wood, and avoid the limelight for the balance of his natural existence.

While harsh, there IS a lot of truth to this. Both the positives of the fight against terror and the high-flying growth spurred by his tax cuts. However, Bush waffled too often on too many issues, and lost his way. Granted, he's tried to balance a long-term, large-scale War on Terror and a peacetime economy at the same time...but that hasn't worked. Also, in an attempt to "save" the economy, we now have the foundations for a large-scale expansion of government.

Further down the column...

With few exceptions, Republican congressional leaders cheered this elephantiasis amid an atmosphere of corruption, incompetence, and unaccountability. Top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell, House GOP chief John Boehner, House Republican whip Roy Blunt, and other failed leaders should go warm the back benches. Senator Ted “Bridge to Nowhere” Stevens will become Ted “Jail to Nowhere” Stevens — and not soon enough.

Former Senate GOP leaders Bill Frist and Trent Lott, and top House Republicans Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay have nothing to offer America. They should be left alone to fade quietly into obscurity.

With the exception of Mitch McConnell, who has done a good job of rallying the minority (for the most part), I can agree with those names named.

Instead, Americans should listen to Republicans who courageously advance pro-market principles today. Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn would make outstanding GOP honchos. House Republicans should elevate Jeff Flake, Mike Pence, Jeb Hensarling, and John Shadegg to key positions. Governors Mark Sanford of South Carolina and Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal are attractive young reformers with lots to offer through at least 2012. Ditto former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael Steele, author of 2008’s best slogan: “Drill, baby, drill!”

Yes, yes, and more yes. Throw in the names of Reps. Thad McCotter (MI-11) and Eric Cantor (VA-7) and the GOP would take on a much fresher, energetic, principled leadership.

David Kahane GETS IT...Period

K-Lo from The Corner posts some truth from David Kahane regarding this election and what needs to be done going forward from the death of this prosperous period in American history...

1) We got this the old-fashioned way: we earned it. The other side took the fight to us, and we never took the fight to the other side, except coyly and obliquely. That's not a mistake we should make the next time. "Honorable campaigns" are for losers. Next time, call 'em as they really are, not as you wish to see 'em.

2) Where was Bush? Once again, and right to the bitter end, he let his passion for "loyalty" supersede what was stragetically right for the party, not to mention what was best for the country. I think his reputation has nowhere to go but down; yes, he got one big thing right,
but he got everything else wrong. Enough of this family in our
country's politics!

3) Good riddance to Liddy Dole, the woman who gave us the national drinking age of 21 and a host of sozzled underage college students. She won't be missed.

4) Hillary comes out smelling like a rose, plus unbloodied. She and Bill are already scoping out 2012.

5) Time to clean house. McCain should have been president in 2000, not in 2008. No more "it's my turn" for the last loser. We need to be looking for our candidates in the ranks of returning war vets — think Eisenhower in '52 as the model — and let the Dem's shifty lawyers run the country for a couple of years. Then hit them across the board with people who know how to lead. Gen. Petraeus might be a good place to start. Lots of junior officers, too.

6) You know what? McCain never did sell himself as a leader. He sold himself as a maverick.

7) One upside: McCain/Feingold is now dead, as is public financing. Talk about being hoist with your own petard!

8) That Gang of 14 thing really worked out well, didn't it? Say good-bye to the courts. And we were so close...

9) Joe Lieberman was worse than useless. When he could have made a difference, he didn't cross the aisle to caucus with the Republicans.
Now, it doesn't matter. Thanks, Joe.

10) Age matters. McCain ran an "honorable campaign" because he never really understood in his heart that the other guy had no intention of doing so; he didn't "get" Obama's generation, or Axelrod's.. Obama would lie about public financing, "oppose" gay marriage but also oppose Prop. 8 and never see it as morally contradictory. The world that McCain understood and operated in is vanishing, and tonight is visible evidence.

11) Unlike the Democrats, let's show some class in defeat. That doesn't mean lie down and roll over: it means fighting for what we believe in, doubly so now. But their sneering childishness is not for us; and now that they've won, they won't be able to control it even in victory. This is an unlovely party filled with unlovely people, as America's about to find out once the Obama pixie dust wears off.

12) Understand, once and for all, that the old media is part of the Democratic Party now. Ignore it. Never send Michele Bachmann onto Hardball again. Never send Sarah to play nice with Katie. We need to develop and create our own work-arounds — Fox, talk radio, NRO, etc. — and use them. Don't play by their rules: make our own.

Truth, my friends, is occasionally a hard pill to swallow...but there isn't much to argue with above.

Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction

If Obama wins, this blog will swing even more libertarian in nature.

I only disagree with certain LP subsects on a few issues, but those subsects are the most vocal subsect of the party. Considering I'm a conservative-leaning libertarian (or a libertarian-leaning conservative, depending on the issue and your own perspective), I'm going to have to take a harder line against a quasi-socialist, ultra-liberal Obama administration...should he win.