I’m at the NRI Summit in DC this weekend. It’s great catching up with blogger friends. And I’m finally meeting some of the folks I love to read everyday from the National Review.

It’s hard for me to listen and blog, so while Gov. Scott Walker and US Sen Ted Cruz speak a lunch, I’m just going to listen.

I’m giving real time updates on GayPatriot on Twitter.

More later. Maybe photos.

-Bruce (@GayPatriot)

A recent Pew Research survey showing Republicans are making serious gains in “leaned party identification” among white voters, particularly those under 30 and those “earning less than $30,000 annually”.   Yet, as my friend John Hinderaker noted, they have failed to make similar headway among ethnic minorities.  He offers “two possible explanations” :

The first is that poorer whites see their fortunes as tied to the economy, while poorer African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely to see their fortunes as tied to government support. Thus, hard economic times may only cement their loyalty to those who promise more government benefits.

This theory may be partially correct, but it can’t account for the whole phenomenon, since large majorities of African-Americans and Hispanics are not poor, but are middle-income or better. Likewise, the fact that African-Americans (but not, to my knowledge, Hispanics) are more likely than whites to be public employees can be, at most, a partial explanation.

The second possibility is that Republicans haven’t done a good enough job of competing for the votes of these minorities. This is, of course, a discussion of long standing in Republican circles.

It would be interesting to see if there has been any shift among gay voters in the past two years.  Surely, gay entrepreneurs feel the impact of increasing regulation and prefer policies which give them greater freedom to operate their enterprises.

But, does the perception that social conservative dominate the GOP prevent gays businessmen and women (less attuned  than we to the increasing economic focus of the GOP) from choosing the party which better represents their economic concerns? (more…)

Below please find a post I wrote on the matter of GOProud Chairman Chris Barron’s recent remarks about Cleta Mitchell. When I ran it by Bruce as we had been discussing how to respond, he asked that I sign his name to it. So, consider it from both of us:

I have long believed it best to address your friends’ faults in private and your enemies’ in public. While Bruce and I have long been enthusiastic about GOProud and supportive of Chris Barron, its chairman of the Board and Jimmy LaSalvia, its executive director, as they try to create a national forum for gay conservatives, we have not always seen eye to eye with them. To be sure, we respect their work, enjoy their company and generally approve of the direction in which they are taking GOProud, but from time to time, we have been skeptical about some of their projects and have occasionally disagreed with their statements (or taken issue with their wording). We have expressed our concerns in private e-mails and polite conservations or merely in remarks to each other.

When we heard that Chris had called Cleta Mitchell a “nasty bigot” in a public forum, Bruce and I each contacted the other to express his concerns. We both believe he crossed a line and have been considering for the past 24 hours how to respond. This evening (Thursday, February 10), we thought it best to post this piece. While we disagree with Cleta Mitchell on a number of issues, we believe Chris was wrong to call her a “nasty bigot” to a reporter for the Metro Weekly. This is not appropriate public discourse. We are pleased that Chris apologized for using such intemperate language and encourage him to use greater discretion in future commentary.

UPDATE:  Just saw this commentary at Allahpundit which reflects our views: (more…)

When Republicans and Democrats lose elections, they do the same thing, albeit in a slightly different manner; they blame Republicans.  Shortly, after their loss of Congress in 2006, Republicans began engaging in a bit of introspection, introspection which was intensified when they suffered further setbacks in 2008, coupled with the loss of the White House.

Introspective, many Republicans asked what had they done wrong (AKA “blaming” Republicans).  This week, we learned (yet again) that Democrats were doing something quite similar, pointing to Republican actions which caused their defeat in the 2010 elections.  And former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi trotted out the standard villain from their catalogue of demonology:  George W. Bush.

The San Francisco Democrat showed just how in denial she is on the day she handed over the gavelto the new Speaker, Republican John Boehner, when she listed her accomplishments, without considering that perhaps it just might have been those “accomplishments” which cost her that gavel.

Fascinating how the party accused of lacking the capability to admit its errors is the party which engages in introspection and the party supposedly composed of such smart folk is the one that refuses to question the merits of its policies — or accept that its policies (rather than the failings and/or machinations of its adversaries) could prevent its election.  Or secure its defeat.

During the course of the 2010 campaign, I was working on a blog post/op-ed with the title I use for this post.  But, as I followed the messages of Republican candidates across the country, I realized that, well, they had already gotten the message.  It didn’t seem necessary.  And since it wasn’t a winning issue in the campaign, it shouldn’t be a defining agenda when the 112th Congress convenes in January.

Thanks in part to the unpopular, big-government initiatives of the Obama Democrats and the concomitant (given popular opinion) growth of the Tea Parties, most Republicans campaigned on fiscal issues.  Those who made an issue of gays (or appeared to do as much) didn’t do as well on Election Day as polls forecast.

Now, our good friends at GOProud “and some Tea Party leaders” are pressing Republicans to stay true to their campaign rhetoric and “to keep social issues off” the agenda:

“On behalf of limited-government conservatives everywhere, we write to urge you and your colleagues in Washington to put forward a legislative agenda in the next Congress that reflects the principles of the Tea Party movement,” they write to presumptive House Speaker John Boehner and Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell in an advance copy provided to POLITICO. “This election was not a mandate for the Republican Party, nor was it a mandate to act on any social issue.”

When Chris Barron of GOProud contacted Bruce and me about the project, each of us eagerly signed on.  His letter is exactly in the spirit of the ideas this blog has been promoting for six year — and that I have been promoting for at last fifteen.  Social conservative Tea Party folk are also signing up:

“When they were out in the Boston Harbor, they weren’t arguing about who was gay or who was having an abortion,” said Ralph King, a letter signatory who is a Tea Party Patriots national leadership council member, as well as an Ohio co-coordinator.

King said he signed onto the letter because GOProud seemed to be genuine in pushing for fiscal conservatism and limited government.

“Am I going to be the best man at a same sex-marriage wedding? That’s not something I necessarily believe in,” said King. “I look at myself as pretty socially conservative. But that’s not what we push through the Tea Party Patriots.”

Nice to see a gay conservative group actually working within the framework of conservative groups to keep the focus on the issues which have defined our party at least since the rise of Reagan — and have helped Republicans win elections in 1980, 1984, 1988, 1994 and now 2010.

Even the Advocate has picked up on this.  Guess the message is that a gay Republicans can get media attention without attacking their own party.

I’ve just begun to read President George W. Bush’s memoirs — Decision Points. I downloaded it on Kindle last night and haven’t been able to put it down.

I’ll discuss more later as I read more (I’m into the summer of 2000 campaign period now.)

But one takeaway already is that George W. Bush is smart, thoughtful, complex, honest, candid and not the cartoon the media liked to make him out to be.

Like or dislike him — this is required reading!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from Dan): I’ve also been reading the book, agree it’s difficult to put down and posted some initial reactions here and here.

Why am I posting this?  Well, for no other reason the sheer delight of knowing that Gay Leftist heads will be exploding all over the place this morning.  Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha.

“I WROTE a new speech for the gays and I don’t have it memorized yet!” said Ann Coulter, as she ducked into a hallway in the Union Square apartment of the venture capitalist Peter Thiel on a recent Saturday night, flicking a half-empty packet of Habitrol gum between her fingers. She was there to speak at Homocon 2010, a party for the one-year anniversary of GOProud, the Washington-based advocacy group for gay conservatives.

For a right-wing, evangelical Christian who has made fun of homosexuals and opposes same-sex marriage, Ms. Coulter seemed awfully … game. Wearing a black lace-up cocktail dress and high black heels, she posed for a photograph with the founder of Boy Butter, a maker of sex lubricants. She joked about her fellow conservatives. “Yes, that was Elton John at Rush Limbaugh’s wedding, not Velma from ‘Scooby-Doo,’ ” she said, as listeners chuckled. She warmly greeted a pornographic film director, and admired the “freedom is fabulous” T-shirt worn by one volunteer. “Can you be gay and conservative?” she shouted at the mostly male crowd, many of whose shirt collars were soaked with sweat after the air-conditioning had faltered. “You have to be!” Conservatives, she surmised, are tough on the war against Islamic terrorists. “And you know what the Muslims do to gays,” she said, flashing a knowing look.

Ah, but for the rest…. you will have READ THE WHOLE THING.

By the way, the founder of Boy Butter must have slipped my attention at the Homocon event.  LOL.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

I will not rehash the case I made against Christine O’Donnell here, suffice it to say that while I don’t think she’s the best candidate Delaware Republicans could have nominated for Senate seat once held by Joe Biden, I do think she is the better of the two candidates currently vying to serve out the Vice President’s term.

She didn’t run a stellar campaign (but her opponent ran an inept one).  She isn’t a charismatic figure like Scott Brown, nor an insightful conservative thinker like Pat Toomey, but she was in the right place, at the right time, with the right message.

She wasn’t just running on the “Tea Party” themes of small government and individual freedom, she was also running against the Republican establishment that doesn’t get the popular mood.  (One could argue that those themes and that opposition are one and the same.) “O’Donnell’s victory was,” James Taranto contends, “a rebuke to an out-of-touch Republican establishment in both Delaware and the District of Columbia“.

Voters, Mattie Fein, Republican nominee in California’s 36th Congressional District (you can support her campaign here), writes

. . . in 2010 are not being swayed by the anointment of the Good Ol’ Boys in the GOP’s picks to run for office. They are rejecting the career politicians and the system; the O’Donnell win is representative of this. And, while I do not agree with many of O’Donnell’s social issues or statements, her win is indicative of the rejection of politics as usual in the GOP.

Exactly.  A rejection of politics as usual. (Mattie, by the way, is a heckuva nice gal (I met her).  She opposed Prop 8 and supports repeal of DADT.)

Mattie’s not alone.  And this anger, as Mark Tapscot notes, is rooted in principle:

First, the anger among Republican voters is not limited to the far right reaches of its “base.” Castle was one of the most popular political figures in the state, yet his support in Congress for TARP bailouts, the radical House version of Cap-and-Trade, and the DISCLOSE Act marked him back home among his fellow Republicans as more a representative of the Washington Establishment to Delaware than Delaware’s representative to Washington. (more…)

It is official.  “Allegedly-disgraced” former House Republican Majority Leader did nothing wrong. (h/t – HotAir.com)

The Justice Department has informed former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) that the government has ended a six-year investigation of his ties to the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to DeLay’s lead counsel in the matter, Richard Cullen, chairman of McGuireWoods.

The investigation lasted through two presidents and four attorneys general. Its demise provides a stark footnote to the lobbying scandals that helped Democrats regain the House majority they held for 40 years and lost in the Republican revolution of 1994, which eventually made the pugnacious DeLay one of Washington’s top power brokers.

So yeah, there’s a lesson to be had.  But it wasn’t that DeLay was a crook.  The Obama Justice Department settled that today.

Ed Morrissey has hit the nail on the head about what lessons the politicians in Washington must learn:

Nonetheless, the travails of DeLay and the GOP in 2006 should serve as a “stark” lesson for Republicans in the midterms.  DeLay authored the notorious “K Street Project” that attempted to build a permanent Republican majority by marrying the party to lobbyists.  That resulted in an explosion of pork and a curious predilection with so-called “big government conservatism” that exploded spending after George W. Bush took office.  That marriage of the federal government and special interests discredited the GOP as an alternative to Democrats, which combined with the scandal led to their downfall in 2006 and 2008.

No more K Street Projects, and no more big-government conservatism.  The next Republican majority had better focus on actual reductions in federal government and the end of pork-barrel spending to woo lobbyists.

Amen.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY (from Dan): You know the more I think about it, the bigger I think the issue is. First, I’m no fan of Tom DeLay, indeed, have dated the decline of the GOP to a few weeks after its 1994 moment of triumph when House Republicans elected DeLay over the principled Bob Walker to be House Majority Whip.

That said, DeLay may have been a zealous pol, eager to put partisan fundraising ahead of enacting reform, he wasn’t a crook. Democrats made much (and gained traction in legislative races) with the assistance of an eager-to-assist media of his supposedly illegal activity. Yet, indicted though he may have been in Texas (by a partisan prosecutor with an axe to grind), he has still not yet been brought to trial.

Just another piece of evidence of how with the support of a helpful media, Democrats use the legal system to bring down Republicans.  You don’t even need a trial, just an indictment and a few insinuations hither, thither and yon.

Sounds like the title of a great movie!  Heh, heh.  Well, I’m still in a nostalgic mood for what our Founding Fathers did on July 4, 1776.  And I caught this item on today’s Heritage Foundation blog.  I hope you find it as inspiring and motivating as I did when I read it this morning.

Happy Birthday America! America is 234 years old. She was born on July 4, 1776, with the passage of the Declaration of Independence.  Since then, America has grown from thirteen colonies on the east coast to fill a vast continent. Her economic and military power is envied around the world. And the American people are hardworking, churchgoing, affluent, and generous.

Independence Day is an opportunity each year to remember the root of our success—our founding principles as set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence serves as a philosophical statement of America’s first principles. As Matthew Spalding describes, the Declaration affirms that all men are created equal. By nature, men have a right to liberty that is inalienable, meaning it cannot be given up or taken away. And because individuals equally possess such inalienable rights, governments derive their just powers from the consent of those governed. The purpose of government is to secure these fundamental rights, and the people retain the right to alter or abolish a government that fails to do so.

These principles have made America the great nation it is today. But, since the early 20^th century, these principles have been under attack in the academy, the media, and popular culture. So-called progressives have rejected the existence of self-evident truths—in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere. Instead, they embrace the notion of “Progress” that is constant change towards an unspecified end. From these faulty principles, it follows that, all men are not created equal; some people are further along in the historical process than others. There are not permanent rights with which man is endowed. Government creates rights, and these rights evolve according to the demands of the time. There is no need for consent of the governed, just experts who will tell us how to live and how to progress.

This is a serious attack on our principles, but not an insurmountable one.

We, The People are in charge.  Our government’s power comes from our consent.  And our rights come from our Creator. Never forget that!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Just chanced upon this post, The Coming Conservative Renaissance, while linking another.  I had penned it in October 2008.

John and I had a great time on our whirlwind trip to LA this weekend. Thanks to Leah, Western Princess of the Homocons for her hospitality!! Karl Rove and Dick Cheney’s speeches were challenging but inspirational. We were thrilled that they appreciated our blog and went out of their way to acknowledge our prescence.

More travel for me this week: Atlanta, including the BlogTalkRadio shoe on Wed night at 10pm Eastern.

And now, I plan to snooze across the fruited planes….

As many of our readers know, CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) is one of the premier, if not the premier, annual conservative gathering.  Slated to begin on February 18, 2010, it will draw leading conservative intellectuals and activists from around the country.  Among the group’s many sponsors with be our friends at GOProud.

Announced that his organization will be “a cosponsor of the single most important conservative gathering in the country”  Jimmy La Salvia, the group’s Executive Director pointed out that the “gathering of the nation’s most influential conservatives gives us an incredible opportunity to deliver our message.”  When the various conservatives assembled for this shindig see gay Americans speaking out against Obama’s statist policies while calling for smaller government and more personal freedom, some may reconsider how they view gay people.

At the same time, by allowing this gay group to cosponsor their marquee event, the American Conservative Union (the leading sponsor of CPAC) shows that it welcomes gay people.  Left-wing misconceptions notwithstanding, most mainstream American conservative organizations don’t discriminate against gay people.  And while there remain many in the conservative movement who continue to harbor unwarranted prejudices against gay people, their attitude is not–and never has been–central to American conservatism.

As gay individuals becoming increasingly visible on the right, we can help correct those prejudices still present in pockets of our movement.  Indeed, some groups, as one of our readers points out, who continue to promote such prejudices are also cosponsoring the conference.  Let us hope the presence of GOProud alongside them at the conference helps wean them of their prejudice.

By cosponsoring CPAC, GOProud is doing something other gay organizations refuse to do:   establish a gay presence an environment where prejudice persists.  If we really want to change attitudes toward gays, we need to work in environments where attitudes need to be changed.

As I finished Sarah Palin’s book earlier this morning, I wondered if she were the right person to spearhead a Republican Renaissance in the United States.  She clearly understands why our party has lost its way, but remains a controversial figure, even a divisive one.  The mere mention of her name whips a huge segment of the American left into a frenzy.

But, even if she is not the right person to lead the GOP, Sarah Palin can help carry the Republican message forward; she certainly understands what has been ailing our party in recent years.  Toward the end of her book, she gets at the twin failures which have plagued the GOP, losing sight of our small-government principles and failing to communicate those principles.  To be sure, she recognizes the challenge of articulating them:

It’s easy to promise free medical care and a chicken in every pot.  It’s more difficult to explain how we’re going to pay for it all and to explain why social programs that were supposed to help the poor have ended up hurting them, becoming unsustainable financial liabilities for all of us.  Ronald Reagan was the last president to explain this to us.

Somewhere along the way, those clear principles got lost.  People look at the Republican Party today–the supposedly conservative party—and say, “What happened to the Reagan legacy?”

In short, the issue is not just conservative ideas, but communicating those ideas.  One reason I believe Sarah Palin matters is that she has shown a knack for communicating that vision and connecting with voters that few Republican politicians have shown in recent years.

And the Republican Party, despite it rises in most polls in recent days, still has an image problem.  Many young voters still see ours as the party of backward-looking social conservatives.  A Hollywood friend recently dismissed the GOP as “old-fashioned.” (more…)

As I read Dan Riehl’s impassioned plea for Republican elitists to stop denigrating grassroots conservative favorites (like Sarah Palin), I recall how, a few years back, many such elitists of a previous generation had similar concerns about a conservative politician beloved by the grassroots, a man who could communicate his ideas while showing that he understood their concerns.

When he was the Republican nominee for President in 1980, he won 44 states.

Like Dan, I believe we need both the elites and the grassroots.  In his 1980 general election campagin, Ronald Reagan succeeded in bringing the two together, a success which would come to define his political career.  Once in the White house, he tapped smart conservative intellectuals to advise him and serve in his Administration while keeping up his correspondence from a number of people in the heartland, always responding to concerns they raised in their letters.

While Sarah Palin has a long way to go to attain the Gipper’s familiarity with conservative ideas, she does have many of his gifts.   “She,” as Dan notes, echoing something even a number of conservative intellectuals have pointed out, “connects with people to the extent they see her as one of them.”  He reminds those  elites who are skeptical of Sarah Palin that we need someone who can communicate with the American people:

Until elitist Republicans get over this fear they have of the media turning our latest personality into a perceived liability, Republicans and conservatives are never going to be able to reach out into the electorate as broadly as they need to do to win.

As the Gipper well understood, the GOP needed the bluebloods as well as blue collar workers to win.  And today, we need the Charles Krauthammers and John McCains as well as the Rush Limbaughs and Sarah Palins.  It’s not an either/or situation, it’s both/and.

And the sooner we learn that, the quicker we recapture our majorities.

Back in 2006, Democrats were able to recapture the congressional majorities they had lost in 1994 by putting themselves forward as the “not-Republicans.”  In 2008, they built on those majorities and their presidential nominee captured 53% of the popular vote, the highest percentage a non-incumbent Democrat had received in over three-quarters of a century by campaigning against an unpopular Republican incumbent and offering vague promises of “hope” and “change.”

Yet, this year, as Chris Christie’s campaign in New Jersey shows, while people are beginning to sour on the Democrats, particularly the incumbent Democratic Governor he seeks to replace, many are still not ready to pull the lever for the Republican.

In 2009 (and possibly 2010), it may not be enough to simply be the “not-Democratic” party (as it was in ’06 and ’08 to be the “not-Republican” party).  Perhaps, the GOP’s difficulty stems from the freshness of people’s memories of the last time the Republicans controlled all the levers of political power in our nation’s capital.  From 2003-2007, successive Republican congresses did little to control domestic spending, even with a Republican in the White House.

But, in ’06 and ’08, memories of the last Democratic Congress has long since faded (save for political junkies).   Few could remember what had sparked the 1994 Republican rout.

Perhaps many who did believed the Democrats had since learned their lesson and had changed their wayward (read:  spendthrift) ways.  On the campaign trail, they, particularly their party’s 2008 presidential nominee, certainly sounded like it.

Now that people can see that Democrats have returned to their free-spending ways, Republicans need show that we’ve learned from out recent setbacks.  Perhaps a GOP leaders need acknowledge that they lost their majorities, in large measure, because legislators failed to rein in federal domestic spending.

In that acknowledgement, they could remind Americans of the words of the document which, back in 1994, helped Republicans regain congressional majorities for the first time in forty years, the Contract with America: (more…)

I read two posts yesterday which reminded me of a notion I’d been pondering for some time.  Here’s the idea in a nutshell:  While the Democrats continue to lose favor with the American people as they propose increased government spending and regulation as the solution to every problem, the GOP (while taking some important strides in the right direction) has not yet presented itself as a viable alternative.

Given Democratic control of Congress and the White House, Republicans still have time to come up with solutions.  After all, Republican Congressmen and congressional candidates did not sign the Contract with America until September 27, 1994, just six weeks before the fall elections which would return control of Congress to the GOP for the first time in forty years.

In the first post, Jim Geraghty reflected on the decline on Obama’s fortunes, but cautioned that this may not be a boon for the opposing party:

On Election Day 2008, many Americans didn’t like where they were. Nearly a year later, they still don’t like where they are; they feel like they’re stuck with the same problems or that they’re worsening. But they’re not convinced that the Republicans have the solutions. For the Right, the job is barely halfway done.

Emphasis added.

The second had a more peevish tone, almost like that of a child upset that he didn’t get an engraved invitation to a public forum advertised on the Internet (and in the local paper).  Bruce Bartlett, who makes some good points about the GOP going off track during the George W. Bush years, repeats a lot of nonsense about the state of the party, suggesting he gets his news from left-wing blogs and a hostile media:

I think the Republican Party is in the same boat the Democrats were in in the early eighties — dominated by extremists unable to see how badly their party was alienating moderates and independents. . . . I will know that the party is on the path to recovery when someone in a position of influence reaches out to former Republicans like me. We are the most likely group among independents to vote Republican. But I see no effort to do so. All I see is pandering to the party’s crazies like the birthers .

(H/t: Instapundit.)

Pandering to the birthers?  Huh?  Who?  Where?  Didn’t the GOP caucus in the House vote overwhelmingly (with no opposition) vote in favor of a bill recognizing Hawai’i as the President’s birth place? (more…)

While many Democrats saw their sweeping victories last fall as the sign of a new era of liberal ascendancy, polling taken then and since shows that despite Barack Obama’s brief period of popularity, America remains a center-right nation.  Conservatives outnumber liberals in every state, with nearly twice as many Americans identifying as conservative than as liberal.  If Republicans could hold those conservative voters and bring in just over one-third of moderates, they would win the same popular vote majority Democrats received that fall.

But, up until quite recently (like, um, last month), Republicans have had a problem not just with moderates, but also with conservatives. Many just weren’t convinced we would stand up for any of the principles near and dear to their hearts.

As Michael Barone explains there “are more conservatives than Republicans“.  That expression alone explains why Republicans have had such difficulty the last two election cycles.  Not all conservatives (including a number of very good bloggers ) don’t consider themselves Republican and have regularly (indeed quite frequently during W’s second term) expressed their displeasure with the GOP.

For at least the past six months, since the first Tea Parties in February, growing numbers of Americans have publicly expressed their opposition to increased government spending, a concern the Democratic presidential candidate tapped into in his successful bid for the White House.  With a Republican President and Congress not holding the line on spending, many of those conservatives become disenchanted with the GOP and either didn’t bother to vote or registered their disapproval by pulling the lever for a Third Party candidate or even the Democrat.  (In 2008, Obama got 20% of the conservative vote, up from John Kerry’s 15% four years previously.)

By building on what Peter Wehner and Michael Gerson call the “durable national consensus hold[ing] that American interests are served by the promotion of free trade and classical liberal ideas” that Republicans can hold onto the conservative base while winning back many of the moderates they lost in the last four years and so recapture the majority.

In a piece just published in Commentary, Wehner and Gerson find that President Obama, “by indulging his seemingly limitless faith in the power of government to solve every human ill.” has given the GOP a path to revival.

To be sure, this is not all they say is essential to Republican rebuilding.  (more…)

With a recent Gallup poll showing that conservatives outnumber liberals in every state, even the President’s Illinois and socialist Bernie Sanders’ Vermont, it is clear, to paraphrase Mark Twain, that reports of the death of the conservative movement are premature.

And while some may say we need a leader to begin anew, the signs of the revitalization of conservatism are everywhere.  Many (if not most) of those gathering in public squares and congressional town halls to take issue with the Democrats’ proposed health care overhaul may not identify as conservatives.  But, by the very questions they raise, they stand up for a basic tenet of American conservatism:  distrust of big government.

Poll after poll show the American people continue to oppose ever increasing government spending, with a July Gallup survey showing that the primary reason for “disapproval of the president’s economic policies was, literally, ‘spending too much.’“  In short, conservative ideas continue to resonate.  We don’t need a leader to galvanize our base (but we will need leaders to defeat increasingly unpopular spendthrift Democratic politicians).

That the issues continue to rally the right (that Gallup survey showed that 65% of those who disapproved of Obama did so because of issues*) shows the contrast between the revitalized conservative movement and the fading appeal of the movement which propelled the President to power.  Obama’s movement was little more than a personality cult built on his image.  The “Tea Parties” and the spontaneous expressions of opposition to Obamacare grow out of an idea, the same one that motivated patriots in thirteen British colonies to take first to the streets and harbors, then to arms, in the 1770s:  freedom.

In recent years, the left was first united in opposition to George W. Bush, then in support of his successor.  We conservatives (and libertarians) have long been drawn to an idea.  Had George W. Bush and congressional Republicans understood the importance of small-government principles to their conservative base, the former may have left office with higher approval ratings and many of the latter might still be in office.

———-

*Whereas only 17% of those who approved his performance cited “issues” as the reason for their support.

Well, that’s the way the headlines should read.

Once again, free-marked hating Republicans are to blame for another Obama profligation of our tax dollars. Yes, the House of Representatives passed today the largest tax increase in American history. It comes in the form of Cap-and-Trade, a taxing scheme whereby the government will be able to extort endless amounts of dollars from companies (wonder where they’ll get those dollars?) for, well, um…doing business, all in the name of their religion so-called “global warming”.

The bill was passed without time to read it (sound familiar?) and would cost Americans several times more than it suggests (sound familiar?) and its passage was characterized as vital by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Barack Obama (sound familiar?).

But as with the “stimulus” pork bill of his early presidency, we can’t lay complete blame at the feet of The One and his socialist minions in Congress. Once again, shameful Republicans made the difference in the passage of the bill.

The final vote was 218-212, with 3 not voting. The number of embarrassed embarrassing Republicans who voted aye? Eight. Had they voted no, or even sat it out, this disgusting piece of legislation would be dead right now.

As a public service, here are the names of those who should be beaten in 2010. Please, if you live in their districts, do all you can to find someone anybody to challenge them in their primaries:

Mary Bono Mack, CA-45
Michael Castle, DE-At Large
Mark Kirk, IL-10
Leonard Lance, NJ-7
Frank LoBiondo, NJ-2
John McHugh, NY-23
David Reichert, WA-8
Chris Smith, NJ-4

I encourage all who live in these districts to call their Representative and let them know that you’ll be waiting for them when they get back from DC for their Independence Day vacation.

Next this legislation moves to the Senate. And we remember how great Republicans there are at holding the line on anti-business legislation, right?

When these anti-growth, anti-business, anti-free-market policies start destroying what is left of our economy, and people start blaming Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi for driving the country into a ditch financially, let us not forget those in our own midst who literally were the difference in passing such disastrous legislation.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot), from HQ