The McCain Revolution?

As I have started to decide who I am going to vote for in the primaries, I have tossed and turned about which Republican candidate suites my needs. I started with Giuliani, and then thought Romney was the one I wanted. I later started seeing points from Fred Thompson. I thought from day one that Huckabee was as liberal as a conservative can be, and still do. But then I began to measure these candidates one by one forgetting about one man. Senator John McCain from Arizona. McCain has sort of become a staple in republican primaries, he has always shown his face from time to time, and we have taken him for granted as a sure looser in most races.

As I dug a little deeper into my research about this household name the no one really knows, I began to see a light at the end of the tunnel that Reagan built. We have even posted articles through the American Defense Initiative that have squashed many of the McCain - Reagan similarities that he has proclaimed so many times that he instills in his beliefs and economics.

The more I read, however, the more I began to see that John’s interactions with democrats, his sometimes liberal minded woes that have pushed him down to the bottom of the conservative latter, were actually John being John. Things he says and does, he does because he believes them.

Of all the politicians, I believe that John McCain is closer to the Reagan revolution than the other republican politicians who are currently waving the shiny gold medallion in front of our face and telling us what "they" think we want to hear. Like it or not, Senator McCain tells it like it is, and maybe that is what we need. I think this article from Peter J. Wallison from Yesterday 01/25/2008 says it better than I can.

Reagan and McCain

Apparently dissatisfied with their presidential choices, Republicans are asking, "Why don't we have another Ronald Reagan?" But if we think seriously about what made Ronald Reagan a great leader and a great president, we may find that there's a reasonable facsimile hiding in plain sight.

John McCain, although he has failed to toe the line of conservative orthodoxy, has many of the characteristics that the American people admired in Ronald Reagan, including the key elements that made him a successful president. In fact, given his electability, McCain offers a rare chance for conservatives to recapture the essence of the Reagan revolution.

The similarities between Reagan and McCain begin with their extraordinary attachment to principle. Reagan never altered his views about Communism, the Soviet Union or the importance of shrinking the government, and it was this quality that made him a successful president. Washington is a city where everything is negotiable. In this world, a president with actual principles has a unique attribute -- credibility.

When Reagan stayed the course on tax cuts, despite high interest rates and a weak economy in 1982, he was relying on his principles. When John McCain said, in supporting the surge in Iraq, he would "rather lose an election than lose a war," he is demonstrating the same attachment to principle that animated Ronald Reagan. And this firmness will give him the same credibility in Washington that Reagan enjoyed.

A second similarity is their view of the United States and its role in the world. Reagan, as we recall, described America as a shining city on a hill. What he meant by this was that the United States is an exceptional nation-- "the last best hope of earth," in Lincoln's words. This is the foundation of an aggressive foreign policy, respectful of other nations but ultimately doing what is necessary to defeat the enemies of peace and freedom. Thus, Reagan's foreign policy
-- much to the chagrin of our European allies -- was the opposite of the accommodationist approach followed by his predecessors in dealing with the Soviet Union; as he summarized it: "We win; they lose." McCain sees the United States in the same way, having served in its armed forces, borne years of torture in its behalf, fought for a stronger military, and promised to follow Osama bin Laden to "the gates of hell." He wants to defeat our next great enemy, Islamofascism, not live with it, just as Reagan refused to accept the Soviet Union as a permanent fixture on the international scene.

Reagan and McCain also share the essential characteristic of leaders -- both set their own course without reference to polls or political pressures. When Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, he made a powerful statement about the rule of law, although customary Washington politics would have dictated compromise. When he said in his first inaugural address that "Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem," he was putting himself in opposition to a half-century of growth in the government and its role in the economy. When McCain told a questioner at a New Hampshire town meeting that if he wants to limit free trade "I am not your candidate," or told Iowans that ethanol is not the solution to the nation's energy problems, he, like Reagan, was signaling that he will set his own course and not pander to the politics of the moment.

Finally, Reagan built a new coalition to secure his election, attracting voters across the political spectrum with his vision of smaller government and more personal freedom. Many conservatives fail to understand that Reagan's tax cuts had two objectives -- to promote economic recovery, of course, but also to "starve the beast," by reducing the funds available for government growth. Although Reagan did in fact successfully cut domestic discretionary spending, later Republican presidents and congressional majorities spoiled the brand that Reagan had created for his party. They did it, however, over the strong objections of John McCain, who has been the most consistent advocate in Congress for Reagan's original vision of a smaller and less intrusive government.

The Reagan coalition is still out there, a majority of Americans -- Republicans, Democrats, and Independents -- who believe that the size of government and its role in the economy should be reduced. Through the aggressive use of the veto pen, McCain has promised restore this essential element of Reagan's vision. Why should disaffected conservatives believe this? Because John McCain is like Ronald Reagan in the most significant respect of all: he is an authentic person, not a confection designed by consultants. Reagan, as his diary shows (as if we needed further proof), wanted to be president for a purpose -- as a real person would -- not simply to hold the office. He had a consistent and firmly held set of views that he intended to pursue as president. McCain's straight talk is popular because it's the way real people talk to one another, not the coddling way today's politicians present themselves to us. So when John McCain said, after his victory in South Carolina, that he was a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution and is running for president "not to be something, but to do something" he was making clear that on a range of issues -- from defending the nation to reducing the size of government -- he would bring a new vitality to the Reagan revolution.

By: Peter J. Wallison
From: The American Spectator.com

Forward by Shawn VanHuss.
Shawn is a writer for the American Defense Initiative.

Minority to Majority

One of the few bright spots on the American political map right now for Republicans is, perhaps surprisingly, the House of Representatives.

Once the source of the Republican Party’s (and the conservative movement’s) powerbase in Washington, the House is now the institution in which conservatives hold the least actual legislative power. Because of the legislative rules, majorities in the House possess somewhere between 99 and 100 percent of the institutional power of the place. While Republicans still hold the White House and can still hold their own as a Senate minority, Democrats should, under the rules, be more than able to impose their will in the people’s House.

And yet, Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) and his conference just concluded what was possibly the most successful legislative year for a minority party in memory. Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and her team controlled the agenda, but on issue after issue, they could not control the floor. The Republicans united and not only beat back the most extreme, liberal bills and amendments, but they largely defined the parameters of debate as well. It really was a sight to see, but like all political successes, the House Republicans’ tremendous 2007 session only now increases the expectations and responsibilities for 2008. Now that House Republicans have merited a second look by American voters desperate for positive, principled leadership, they have a responsibility to provide it.

I believe that House Republicans, having shown they have quickly mastered the improved tactics of a minority party, need to break tradition and reassert the strategies of a majority coalition. While Speaker Pelosi will no doubt offer Republican members and candidates plenty of bad ideas to bat down, Republicans can retaliate by offering and demanding a hearing for their good ones. They can use their strategic successes to give the American people a vision of what a Republican Congress would look like, how they would govern differently than the current crowd, and why their ideas truly speak to the problems our nation faces.

Every flawed policy that comes out of the Democrats’ committees can and should be countered with a vigorous, sharply contrasted alternative. Democrats in Washington remain the only people in the country who still believe the war in Iraq is lost and that the surge has failed. Their words and votes should be used against them, and Republican leaders should produce and demand votes on legislation to extend the American people’s moral and material support for the surge strategy, Gen. David Petraeus and our troops. Let all Americans at home and fighting abroad know that the Republican Party is the party of victory.

When the Democrats come forward, as they surely will, with another tax hike this year — like the $15 billion they tried to skim off the top of domestic energy companies last year — Republicans should do more than just fight it off (though they should do that, of course). They should in addition propose sweeping legislation to scrap the current tax code and the odious Internal Revenue Service and enact a flat, fair and fundamentally reformed system.

As Democrats cook up dozens of new and unnecessary things for government to do, Republicans should counter with specific plans to make the government finally do the things it’s supposed to do. When Democrats inevitably try to turn the president’s stimulus package into a spending bill for their special interests, conservatives should come back with a stronger plan that highlights our economic principles. If you can’t pass bills, you might as well do what worked in our 12 years in the majority — start the debate on these bills from the far right, making it more difficult for Democrats to argue on their limited principles and alter the practice.

Other agenda items that bring our constitutional principles to the forefront are in desperate need of legislative debate. To remind Americans of the sweeping consequences of the next election, the judicial junta running much of the country now should be brought to the fore, and brought to heel. Republicans could develop and promote — both externally and internally via discharge petitions — legislation to break up the out-of-control 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, to strip courts of their jurisdiction over political issues like homosexual marriage and publicize federal judges who unconstitutionally base their decisions on foreign law. The battlefield of the so-called culture war is always shifting, and conservatives need leaders on every front.

Leaders aren’t afraid of their ideas. Congressional Democrats, on the other hand, are. They refuse to offer a unified agenda on anything. Think fast: What’s the congressional Democrats’ position on the war on terror, immigration, taxes and the economy, the culture wars, or government reform? They don’t have one because (a) they don’t think their constituents deserve to hear one from them and (b) they know their real values are diametrically opposed to the American people’s.

To win, Democrats feel they have to hide. Republicans should harbor no such fears; their path to victory is relatively simple: Let the Party of Principles rely on them once more.

By Tom DeLay
From: Townhall.com

Learning About the 'Three Sexes'

A new law requiring California public schools to, among other things, allow students to 'choose their own gender' when deciding whether to use the boys or girls restroom and locker room is a glaring example of the cultural assault taking place in America. At stake are the minds, values and ideals of the children who parents send off to school each morning. The law went into effect on Jan. 11.

SB 777 as it is known, claims to be about creating safe schools, and prohibiting discrimination against students based upon gender. Instead it is another example of how the influence which special interest groups hold over our lawmakers results in poor legislation that is out of touch and unrepresentative of the values of the American people. The law alters the definition of the word "sex" as being biological in nature and replaces it with the word "gender" in California's Education Code. It further defines "gender" as "sex" based upon a person's gender identity or gender-related appearance and behavior, and not upon their natural sex at birth.

A supporter of the new legislation, Debbie Look of the California State PTA, told me, "We believe in the right to provide a safe school environment for all students. A 2001-2002 survey indicated that 7.5 percent of students reported being harassed based upon sexual orientation, which in turn leads to poor grades, skipped school days and worse."

But Jim Kelly — one of four Board members of the Grossmont Unified High School School District in San Diego who is currently suing the state of California over SB 777 — had this to say, "No one is arguing against anti-discrimination. There are current laws ... which protect students against the harmful effects of discrimination." But "what they have done here, however, is turn a disorder into a civil right. Gender identity issues are classified as a disorder by The American Psychiatric Association. This law makes it a civil right."

He added: "Furthermore the guidelines are vaguely written. Who enforces whether or not a 16-year-old teenage boy is permitted into the girls locker room? The teachers? The teachers I have spoken with want no part of this. How do we know when someone has selected their gender? Do they give us written notice, verbal notice, same day notice, what?"

State Assemblyman Joel Anderson, who co-chaired a referendum to overturn SB 777, went on to say, "Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger gave his word to all the state legislators that he would not sign this bill. Then one week later, when we were out of session and our guard was down, he signed it — the exact same bill he vetoed last year."

When pressed on why Mr. Schwarzenegger said one thing but did another just days later, Mr. Anderson responded, "I am only speculating, but it is my belief the governor has aspirations to be elected to the U.S. Senate and is courting support among certain special interest groups."
The special interest group that sponsored SB 777 is Equality California. It describes itself as "California's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender civil rights and advocacy organization, leading efforts for civil rights at the state level through strategies, including sponsoring legislation and efforts to ensure passage, lobbying legislators and government officials."

There could be national ramifications that go beyond the state of California. Some interpret the law as forcing California textbooks to no longer be able to use words like "mother and father" and "husband and wife," because they suggest that heterosexuality is the norm." Since California is often the largest purchaser of textbooks, schools across the nation may be impacted because publishers are not likely to create separate textbooks for other states.

Where does it go from here? According to Mr. Anderson, "First of all, it is now the law in the state of California. "Secondly, this legislation was strategically written (without proper guidelines) so that it would be enforced in the courtrooms. The lawsuits are coming. In the meantime we are forming an initiative to overturn it, which is where we prefer to fight this battle".

It used to be parents sent their children off to school to learn about the three Rs. Now, in California at least, children are about to be taught about the three sexes.

By Rick Amato
From Townhall.com

Greenland Sees Record Cold, Ice Due To Global Warming

Did I say "global warming"? Of course I meant climate change.

From the Copenhagen Post:

While the rest of Europe is debating the prospects of global warming during an unseasonably mild winter, a brutal cold snap is raging across the semi-autonomous nation of Greenland.

On Disko Bay in western Greenland, where a number of prominent world leaders have visited in recent years to get a first-hand impression of climate change, temperatures have dropped so drastically that the water has frozen over for the first time in a decade.

'The ice is up to 50cm thick,' said Henrik Matthiesen, an employee at Denmark's Meteorological Institute who has also sailed the Greenlandic coastline for the Royal Arctic Line. 'We've had loads of northerly winds since Christmas which has made the area miserably cold.'

Matthiesen suggested the cold weather marked a return to the frigid temperatures common a decade ago.

The mayor cautioned against thinking that the freezing temperature indicated that global warming claims were overblown. He noted that a nearby glacier had retracted more in the past two decades than in recorded history.

'We Greenlanders have acclimated to changing conditions over the past 1100 years,' said Frederiksen. 'Temperatures change at regular intervals.'

Um, temperatures have changed at regular intervals over 1100 years, so that's evidence that, um, global warming climate change is a new phenomenon?

Bonus fact: Greenland's capital is "Nuuk." Did anyone know that? Be honest. I don't care if you lie to me, but don't lie to yourselves.

By Ace
Ace of spades HQ