Last night Republicans in Iowa spoke out about the future of this country. The final results are interesting because the party mainline candidate won, but only by eight votes (according to the numbers published by Fox News). Right on the tail of the winner was Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. Santorum is so close their results are almost indiscernible and Ron Paul slipped ahead enough times to cause the mainline GOP pundits to develop a twitch.

It is of course easy to tell what happened. A set number of those attending decided their primary qualification was a sense of electability and held firm for Romney. Then the ideologues were split among Santorum and Paul. Of course, this was inevitable. Santorum appeals more to the evangelical, social conservative, while Paul appeals more to the fiscal conservative. Being libertarian many of Paul’s views on social issues would be seen as libertine and unacceptable to most evangelicals. Sometimes I think I am the only libertarian evangelical in the world—though I know a couple others who may qualify.

Since Iowa is a state where voters can show up at the caucus and change their affiliation to vote, a large number of independents supported Paul. This of course skews the numbers for Santorum because it means the lion’s share of rock-ribbed conservative GOP voters in Iowa must have voted for him. Had Paul not been in the race, it is likely many of his GOP supporters would have selected Santorum as the anti-Romney candidate, giving Santorum a runaway evening.

Last night is a perfect example of what will happen if there is a third party run by a serious candidate. Unfortunately, Paul refuses to take such a run off the table. He did so early in the race declaring that he would not go third party but would run as a Republican, but recently on a late night talk show he said a third party run was still possible. In Iowa, Santorum was the candidate closer to the values of the state. Don’t get me wrong. I am not a Santorum supporter and believe he has much to answer for and could be very vulnerable in a general election, but Iowa is not the beltway. He should have been a shoe-in, but with the addition of another ideologue candidate taking away a large enough number of the base and a good number of independents, Iowans ended up with a candidate they have little in common with—one whom the majority of the state did not want.

This scenario is going to keep playing itself out. State by state, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum (or Perry in some) will split the conservative vote and Paul will bring in enough independents to pad his numbers until we end up with Mr. Romney as the official candidate for our party. I fear the skewed numbers will convince Paul that he has a shot and he’ll leave the GOP at the last moment to run a third party candidacy. If this happens get ready for four more years of Obama.

How to Win a Local Election

This week, Mitt Romney was endorsed by the DE Moines Register and the talking heads are busy debating how this will impact his campaign. Many people overlook how useless such endorsements really are. Not only are they useless, but they actually demonstrate a problem with the endorsee.

Newspapers will endorse someone from both sides of the race. If there is both a Democrat and a Republican running they will endorse a candidate for each party. In seeking the candidate to endorse they look for those who match up with the values of the paper’s owners or editorial staff. This means they look for a Democrat and a Republican who each share their values. So when everything is done and the endorsements have been announced we see which two people have the closest values to each other and are the least different. The Register has told us Mitt Romney is the most Democrat-like of all the candidates. When you see such endorsements take notice and vote with care.

I am sick of hearing about the evils of gridlock and the virtues of compromise. I understand compromise is an essential part of our government, and to accomplish anything each side must surrender some of their pet ideology and seek common ground. However, the founders never imagined over 500 full time people whose only purpose to exist is the creation of law—easily defined as new limits to our freedoms. It is easy to see that our nation is never as free as when Washington is in full-fledged gridlock.

In the vitriol against gridlock, one target is the Republican controlled House of Representatives. Those of us who worked so hard to take the House last election have to understand that since we only control the House we are limited in our ability to influence law and policy. Only bills attractive to the Democrat controlled Senate will pass; so blocking the agenda of the Left is our most powerful tool. When you hear it reported that Congress refuses to get along and pass some bit of legislation, see such reports as banners pronouncing “Freedom Survives Another Day.”

I know many will complain that if Congress and the President don’t work together the economy will not be fixed. Actually it is government tweaking and interference that keeps the economy on the rocks. The best thing to happen to the economy would be a removal of that interference. If Congress won’t actively remove the onerous regulations that have strangled our economy, the next best is a gridlocked Congress that can implement no new ones.

Barack Obama rode a mantra of “Hope” and “Change” into the Whitehouse. The Republican Party was disappointed by leaders infected with the neoconservative heresy. Eight years of majority dithered away as Republicans acted like Democrats to buy votes. Instead, they alienated their base, lost their majority along with the White House.

In 2008 the GOP ran a candidate ill equipped to inspire the base. While he could promise little more than four years of the same, Obama promised something different. Of course it would be different. He was using the word “Change,” wasn’t he? He said he would change things. Of course there was little said about what he would change beyond such bromides as “share the wealth” and “fairness.” His Senate record of voting “Present” was no help pointing out the direction he would take the country. Yet he was able to inspire people and assure them that he was the savior they had awaited for so long.

This election we have a chance to make real changes in Washington. We have the House already, and a Senate majority is within reach. Hopefully both will be dominated by rock-ribbed conservatives. The problem is our ticket for the White House. None of this lot really inspires the base, in general. Sure each has their supporters, but none seem able to coalesce the base into a political machine. Each will have to rely on a fear of four more years in the Obama wasteland to keep their detractors in check, pushing them to show up at the polls, nose held tightly to cast their ballot. But show up they must. This is because while there they will vote for something even more important than the butt parked in the Oval Office. Every member of Congress and 1/3 of the Senate are up to reelection. Remember, the House initiates all appropriations bills (they hold the checkbook) and the Senate must approve all court nominees and treaties (they hold the keys to our freedoms).

The most important thing the GOP candidate can do is motivate. Rather than running as the Anti-Obama, this person must run as America’s answer—inspiring hope. Ronald Reagan did not simply run against Carter. Yes, his quip about a recovery being defined as Jimmy Carter losing his job was funny and creative—and oh, so very true! However, he spent most of the time playing up America and the bright future that was ahead for her if only the people would put him in office. We had just ended the long bloody Vietnam conflict. Inflation was rampant, unemployment through the roof. Things were so bad that previous laws of economics were rewritten giving us the previously unknown “stagflation.” After Nixon’s shenanigans, Ford’s questionable pardon of him, and Carters general ineptitude, people had a deep distrust for politicians. Well guess who is back. We have Jimmy Carter the sequel. It is time to send this guy off into the private sector, once and for all. The way to do that is to take a play from the Gipper and inspire. Don’t play on our fears; draw from our hopes.

Recently the House of Representatives passed a huge tax bill masked as an energy plan. HR 2454, which none of the House read prior to the vote, adds artificial costs (just another form of tax) to energy production and distribution. The goal of the bill is to make green energy more palatable and competitive so that market conditions will coax the nation to develop and switch to these new technologies. This is sort of a round about way to answer the critics of green energy who say that these sources of energy are cost prohibitive and that the market does not want them. Rather than letting market forces work, Congress wants to make the energy we currently use so expensive that other sources will become magically attractive. This is in keeping with the motto of the Democratic party: “If you can’t beat them, tax them into submission.”

Unfortunately, certain Republicans in the House of Representatives thought that you and I do not spend enough on utilities and voted with the majority to dip into your wallet. It is my hope that the eight voting for the bill will face serious primary opposition and be removed from office next time around.

The eight who voted to raise the consumer’s cost of energy:

Mary Bono Mack (R CA)
Michael Castle (R DE)
Mark Kirk (R IL)
Leonard Lance (R NJ)
Frank LoBiondo (R NJ)
John McHugh (R NY)
Dave Reichert (R WA)
Christopher Smith (R NJ)

Recently a very influential local Republican expressed what he thought was key to winning the next election. He advised getting along and not fighting. While this last election was plagued with party infighting, what did the leadership think would happen when they ran a candidate with a long history of opposing the party? Were we, as loyal Republicans, to march in lockstep and vote for whomever they gave us? What about the parties responsibility to seek and field candidates that uphold the principles of the party?

(more…)

When the anticipation of the upcoming election mixes with the sting of the last one those of us on the right can get uptight. Until this last weekend I was feeling better about the prospects of wrenching control of Congress from the Pelosi/Reid cabal. From much of what has come out of Republican circles I was confident the party had learned its lesson and was returning to its principles. Then came last Saturday.

(more…)

Once again, Arlen Specter and the Mainers (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine) have sided with the Spendocrats. They double-crossed by crossing over and then continued their dance with the Devil voting in support of the pork-ulous bill. Can someone please tell me what makes Arlen Specter a Republican. The only evidence I see is the little R they append to his name on the news, other than that I see an ass in an elephant skin. It is time to go on a R-I-N-O hunt and this Arlen Specter should be in the political cross-hairs starting yesterday.

The only thing that will save the GOP is to snatch the party reigns back form the elitist, moderate sell-outs (spelled R-I-N-O) and return it to the conservative principles of the grassroots. I could go on about this for hours, and will in the future, but for now I’ll hand it to RebuildTheParty.com and let them tell you in the following video. (more…)

Since November the Republican Party seems to be falling further into the political abyss. Rather than coming to terms with its departure from party principles under the neocons the party elite has muddied the water with name calling and finger pointing. There are those who want to point the finger at Sarah Palin as the reason for McCain’s loss. (more…)