Democrats frequently like to remind John McCain, and voters in the process, that he is “out of touch” with the everyday American who is struggling with finances at the kitchen table. Democrats often like to state that they are in touch with the middle-class, as they go to bed at night thinking that their economic policies best benefit those that are struggling with increasing prices at the grocery store and the pump. On the other hand, they wake up each day as if it were Christmas once McCain says something like the “fundamentals of our economy are strong” thinking they’ve got just the thing to zing him with. Well, they’re wrong.

The McCain campaign may be attempting to spin this by stating that the economy is faring poorly because of a culture of greed and corruption that exists both in Washington and Wall Street but I see it differently. McCain, I agree wholeheartedly with you that the fundamentals of our economy are in fact strong. Americans, as well as many around the world today, are facing greater economic adversity; you cannot deny that as oil, a raw material that our economy (and much of our daily lives) revolves so much around, increases exponentially in price and food grows greater and greater in cost. Yet, it does not mean that our economy is on the brink of destruction. Likewise, each and every day we are reminded of the aftermath and fallout of the housing bubble bursts as one blue-chip financial institution after another appeals to the government (and taxpayers) to bail them out. Liberals, you need not remind us constantly; we know, as does everyone else who stays even remotely in touch with some outlet of the news. It does not mean that the fundamentals of our economy are weak or poor, however!

What the Democrats (and liberals for that matter) have wrong is this: capitalism, the foundation of this nation’s economy, is what made us prosper and flourish. Capitalism has spurred great innovation intellectually and industrially, as private individuals seek participation in the economic system to get a cut of the pie. People work hard because they can achieve some value from it, they are able to make profit and be better off than they were beforehand. Capitalism is still alive and strong and is the economic system of each and every player in the world stage today. Liberals, you cannot use our current hurdles as an excuse to push your nanny-state, never-ending, all-encompassing-government-policies! We do not need the government to hold our hand; in fact I’d like it a whole lot if the government would simply keep its hands to itself; no means no Big Brother!

We need tax cuts to keep more money in people’s pockets so that they can spend, spend, spend. Did everyone forget that we are a consumer-based economy? To maintain a sense of equilibrium, which I must say does not seem to be in Washington’s understanding nowadays, we need to “fight the pork” as McCain would say. Cut the life support to all the wasteful spending in government and axe programs that would be best served in the private sector. To increase efficiency of the private sector, it would also do well to cut regulations to create a more free market. For example, allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines would increase competition and thus be more resourceful in the realm of health care. McCain, you may draw the ire of some conservatives, yet your policy and personal stances are most definitely true and correct, you just need to remember the basics of fiscal conservatism. It’s capitalism, stupid!

According to a recent article in the Politico, some strategists–Republican and Democrat alike, predict that–despite the strong odds against the Republican Party right now, McCain has a fairly strong chance at taking the Presidential election in November.

This optimistic prediction assumes that Obama will receive the nomination from the Democratic Party, which seems most likely right now. If a lawsuit against the DNC for representation of the Florida Democratic delegates currently under way succeeds, however, it might turn the tide. A brief description of the lawsuit is below:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/22/lawsuit/index.html

McCain’s chances would rely primarily on his wrestling away much-needed swing state electoral votes from Obama, which some pundits think the Arizona senator can accomplish by virtue of his numerous candidate strengths and Obama’s various vulnerabilities. McCain is a decorated war hero, a former prisoner of war, a straight-shooter who speaks his mind and stands by what he believes even if it is unpopular, a maverick who has agitated for change in Washington from the Senate floor for more than twenty years, and a pragmatist who is able to work with both sides of the aisle. Obama, on the other hand, is a left-wing ideologue who has for twenty years attended a church led by an anti-white, anti-American, conspiracy theorist who still believes–despite overwhelming scientific evidence–that there are genetic differences between whites and blacks which make their brains different, and who furthermore believes that the United States government intentionally infected the black community with the AIDS virus. In addition to his long and apparently deep relationship with the radical Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama speaks of bipartisan unity but has the honor (or dishonor) of holding the most liberal voting record in the US Senate. See here:

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

McCain could well capture many states normally up for grabs in election years, including Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and possibly even the traditionally Democratic California. I think this is achievable if voters see the true story of Obama: his staunch liberalism masked by his eloquent calls for unity, hope, and change, they will shy away from supporting him, and instead consider the more moderate, conservative, common-sense, and principled approach of John McCain. The key is showing the electorate the true Obama, while highlighting the remarkable personal journey of Senator John McCain’s life, a life filled with steadfast commitment to public service.

You can read the article on McCain’s potential for a “blowout” victory below:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10585.html

I’m not going to steal Chris’s thunder about the Time magazine cover, but I wanted to mention something in the same vein. The SF Chronicle did an audio slide show of the Berkeley College Republicans and some of their campaign work, featuring some of our compatriots and fellow campus conservatives.
View it here, showcasing our friends Kyle and Ross, who speak very well on behalf of our organizations. Go take a listen! I’m also in there photographically, but the pictures are hardly flattering.

Stay tuned for Super Tuesday updates. Unfortunately I still vote in a state that has a Feb 19th primary, so I won’t have much to add, but Chris and others should have plenty to say about the vote today.

For this lame-duck State of the Union, I am celebrating in a lighter manner with the State of the Union drinking game (patent pending). For those republicans uninterested in taking themselves seriously (and who are of age) I reccommend choosing a few of Bush’s favorite words and get yourself set with some drinks. For the occasion, I am enjoying Lone Star beer, which bills itself as the “national” beer of Texas, and Busch, while liveblogging the speech.

Stay tuned for notable quotables.

Bush suprises before the speech even starts, by rubbing a bald man’s head during the handshake-period on the way to the stage.

“Since then, our country has been tested in many ways we could not imagine”

“we recognize our responsibilities and are determined to meet them” (accompanied by commentary about bipartisan unity in congress)

“we have unfinished business, and the American people expect it to get done”

Economy
“We must trust in the abilities of free peoples to make wise decisions” (trust people with their own money)
He commented on the long run vs short run in our economy; and how in the long run the economy will turn out ok.
Taxes: Letting taxs relief expire is a tax hike. Hillary doesn’t look amused. “Make the tax relief permament”; “spend tax dollars wisely”–mentions eliminating porkbarrel spending.

“The people’s trust in their government is undermined by earmarks”–”I asked you to stop slipping earmarks into [things] that never come to a vote”. Promises to veto this spending. “Congress should debate them in the open, and hold a public vote” (the Democrat side actually stood for this one.)

Healthcare
“We must trust patients and doctors to make good decisions”–one applauding audience member. (Bush’s word of the night seems to be “Empower”. Also, the camera crew seems to be zeroing in on Obama and other blacks in the audience).
“Prevent junk medical lawsuits”; Congress shouldn’t decide on medical issues.

Education
“We must demand results from our schools”–will he mention No Child’s success? “No one can deny it’s results” (hrm…) “African-American and hispanic students posted all-time high [scores]”
“Congress: The No Child Left Behind Act is a bipartisan measure and we owe it to [students] to further this effort” (No democrat applause). “Help liberate poor children”

Trade
Open up markets; “I thank the congress for approving an agreement with Peru”; asks for approvement of deals with Colombia, etc. “Support good jobs for the finest workers in the world; those who’s products say “Made in the USA”

6:24 First mention of “Terror”. This is a surprise to me. Also, a surprise to see John Kerry in the audience. I mean, we know senators would be there, but still!

“Future of energy security: we must trust in the creative genius of American entrepreneurs”
Environment: “reduce consumption of oil”; fund new projects that cut down carbon emissions.
Nucular! He finally said it; both the pronuonciation, and the mention of the technology make me smile. “Eventually stop the spread of greenhouse gasses”. “This will only be a success if…it gives no free rides”. Awww global climate change? (Hillary could clap for that)

Government
“Funding is essential to keeping our competitive edge in the…physical sciences” (Woo!) I am glad he is harping on the intuitive and competitive nature of American science and invention. He mentions cell research “without the disruption of human life”. “We must ensure that all life is treated with the dignity it deserves”; no buying, selling, or cloning of human life. (That’s something everyone can applaud, apparently).

“The Constitution means what it says” (the camera pans to stone-faced justices). “The Senate should give each (judge) a prompt, up-or-down vote”.

“Armies of compassion”. Woah, there’s a new one. Mention of New Orleans; everyone can stand up for that.

“Two things this body has failed to address: spending, and immigration”. Right on! “Come up with a bipartisan solution to save these programs for our children”. Mentions increased worksite enforcement for immigration which appears to be working, “ended border catch-and-release”. Still wants a worker program, but I don’t think thats happening. “must be resolved in a way that reflects both our laws and our highest ideals”.

Enemies abroad
“We trust that people, given the chance, will pursue a life of freedom and peace”
Ukraine, Afghanistan, Iraq: “These images of liberty have inspired us” (Man, cheney has a poker face!).
“Lebanon and Pakistan have had beloved leaders taken”; mentions images of terror since 9/11, calls terrorists “evil men”. “We will deliver justice to our enemies” (At this comment, my friend says, ‘That’s the Bush I know!’)

“In the long run, men and women who are free to choose their own destinies will reject terror”.
Mentions positive signs in Iraq/Afghanistan; schools, hospitals, etc. “Train the Afghan soldiers” to lead their own country.
Iraq: “One year ago, our enemies were succeeding…so we reviewed our stragety and changed course”. Working with the Iraqi forces; sheiks/army. “Improvements in security were followed by improvements in daily life”. “Grassroots movements includes more than 80 thousand Iraqi’s”

“When we met last year, some said this was impossible”. Take that, Murtha/Reid! “Today, it is Al Qaeda that is searching for safe passage”. “But among the terrorists, there is no doubt. AQ is on the run in Iraq, and will be defeated”. Soldiers are beginning to come home; this is a credit to our troops and commanders.

“Soldiers and sailors, Arimen, Marines and Coast guardmen: in the past year you have done everything we asked for and more. We are proud of your accomplisments, and with the American people as our witness, we make a solemn pledge: you will have all you need to protect our nation” (Some of the Dem’s are standing; it looks like the wave over there.) “Any further draw-down will depend on the contition in Iraq, and the reccommendations of our commanders”.

“Time and momentum” seem to favor the enemy; “My fellow Americans; we will not rest until this emeny has been defeated” “Years from now, people will look back and see that people rose to the moment…and left behind a more hopeful region anda safer America”. Shifts to Israel: “A holy land with a democratic Israel and a democratic Palestine”.

“Seems the Iranian regime is there to oppose it”. I was sure this was going to be mentioned. “Iran: we have no quarrel with you…we look forward to the day when you have your freedom. Suspend your nuclear enrichment at once. Cease your support for terror abroad”

“To protect America, we need to know who the terrorists are talking to”; talking about legislation/intelligence. “Congress must ensure that the vital flow of information is preserved”. “The time to act is now”; standing ovation from the Republican side.

International issues
Belarus, Burma (Myanmar?). Deliver aid to countries with disasters; asking for funding to fight global hunger. “Break the cycle of famine”. Fight disease; Malaria, AIDS, etc. (Some interesting spirit-fingers going on at that rostrum…)

“We have a responsibility to prove for [soldiers]”; child care, education benefits (transfer to spouses or children), health care, etc. “Soldiers support our nation, inspire our nation, and tonight we honor them” (delayed reaction on the applause there!).

Reference “We the people”; “Our founders wagered that a great nation could be built…let us go forth and do our business”

My elementary analyis: He got the economy out of the way up front, to make room for his favorite subject, the war and international affairs. While I cringed a little at the climate change/education mentions, he did very well at the end. It was nice to get away from the present you/me/us focus and look at the past, and give some perspective.

I actually missed it, and I missed most of the second showing, so I won’t have too much to say until I watch it online. But if any of y’all have anything interesting to say, consider the comment section an open thread.

By the way, I like Alan Colmes a lot, but he asked what has to be the single least well thought out question I’ve ever heard asked in a post-debate interview. Talking to Sen. McCain, regarding Iraq, he asked the following question (emphasis mine, slightly paraphrased):

“You know, one big argument people have is that if we leave Iraq, they’ll just follow us over here. They said that during Vietnam, too, and of course that didn’t happen. I mean, what are they going to do? What, are they going to hop on planes and fly over here?“

(Not that it really matters what the topic of the post is about, since the comments are likely to be about Israel, but hey.)

If you’ve been paying any attention at all to the GOP race, you know that by far the biggest issue to come out of the recent debate was Giuliani’s squishiness on abortion. That issue has only snowballed with the revelation that he donated to Planned Parenthood several times during the 90s. And so on and so forth.

I’ve just been thinking a little about Giuliani and his views on abortion. His whole shtick has been “I hate abortion, but I think it’s not my place to make that decision.” I think the whole “personally pro-life, but legally pro-choice” is a pretty common pro-choice position (I was once that way myself, back in high school). But it really isn’t one that holds water. Because the question becomes (and this is what I asked myself near the end of high school, when I became pro-life) why do I “hate” it? Most people who do - myself included - have an aversion to it because we believe that it is tantamount to murder - that a fetus is a human being and alive from the moment of conception. Otherwise, there’s no real reason to be opposed to abortion. And the question then becomes, well, believing that, can I really say that I think that’s a moral decision each person has to make? The answer I came to was no, because it’s not just a personal moral decision - it’s one that affects two people, one of whom is not a party to the decision. No matter how “live and let live” you may be on moral issues, I think it’s a little difficult to take that view on abortion.

So, obviously, from that, as I said before, if you don’t believe a fetus to be a living human being, there really is no case against abortion. I thought about this for a while, during a review session when I should have been learning poli sci, and I came to the conclusion that Giuliani’s “I hate abortion personally” thing could make sense. I guess it’s still possible to hate abortion, even if you don’t believe a fetus to be alive, if you are the type of person who gets very deeply upset about people not taking responsibility for their actions. But I dunno…even if that is the case, yeah, I guess Giuliani’s position would be coherent morally…but that’s sort of a jerk reason to hate abortion.

Anyway, all that reasoning comes to naught, because it turns out today that Giuliani believes abortion to be morally wrong.

I can respect a lot of pro-choicers who just don’t believe that a fetus is alive. I think they’re wrong on their premises, but given that premise they’re basing their reasoning on, they’re coming to absolutely the correct conclusion.

On the other hand, to actually believe that abortion is the taking of a human life but to still say you think it should be legal is completely incoherent. Giuliani is digging himself into a very, very deep hole here.

The GOP debate kickoff, in what Drudge Report called “The Reagan Derby”, is happening right now on my television. A small viewing party has sprung up, so the peanut gallery and I will provide some “insightful” commentary.

We’ve noted (sorry James) that Brownback needs a makeover.

Three Reagan plug have happened so far, and I’m suprised there haven’t been more, since it’s located in the heart of Reagan territory, his Presedential Library in Simi Valley. (a nice place, by the way).

The commentary so far on the Iraq war has been fairly positive but not particularly substantive. As my friend says, “we should call this the run-around Sue”. I’m pleased that lots of issues regarding Iraq, like winning hearts and minds, the issue of Iran, Osama and Al Qaeda,

“But he [Osama bin Laden] is going to pay, and he will die” –Romney. I think this quote made my day.

McCain tried to latch on to this ferocity with “I will follow him to the gates of hell” This sets Romney out as someone for other’s to follow. Good or bad?

Token mention of Arnold! Go California! “I love the Governator”. This is in the context of not amending the constitution to let those born in other countries to run for president. Many candidates have made quips about this, but only two supported it: Giuliani, and i didn’t catch the second.

“What do you dislike most about America?” (to Romney) No wonder this question came from the Bay Area, what a wierd question. He said he loved everything about this country (here he made his second citation of Reagan).

Global Warming: Oh boy. “The old boyscout adage: Leave the campsite in better shape than you found it”. I think this was Gilmore.

Miost of the candidates look fairly good on their feet.

To Ron Paul: “Would you work to phase out the IRS?” –”Immediately!”. He said he is against a cradle-to-grave policy for Americans (One of my friends is now completely sold on this man)

Those for the overturning of Roe V. Wade: All of them. Giuliani “It would be ok”, he is in favor of states deciding on abortion rights and rules.

Romney’s commentary on abortion was “whether or not government should take a part in this decision” and he “changed his mind”. Also, his third mention of Reagan. (That’s five so far)
Six! Brownback just made another.

Seven, this one by the moderator. He’s asking a question in the spirit of Reagan; restore a unity of purpose, reduce government, etc.

McCain adresses his age in this question, saying “I’ve known the good and evil in this world, I’ve seen it” to which my friend says “You’ve seen everything!”

Hunter emphasizes his Defense background, much like McCain.

Two more references to Reagan, “Morning in America” and “a city on a hill”.

It’s interesting to see which candidates look at the camera and which look at the moderator.

Ron Paul: “If the goal of government is to be the policeman of the world, then you lose liberty”

To Romney: “What would you say to Roman Catholic Bishops who want to deny communion to those who support abortion?” –”I don’t say anything to Roman Catholics, they are a private organization”. Points for the religion joke.

So. I have to head out to some events, but we will see how the headlines say tomorrow. In the words of my friend “Oh no, Romney is winning me over!” I’ll follow up at another time.

This year’s spring CCR was held in Santa Clara, hosted by the Santa Cruz College Republicans. Prominent speakers included Tony Strickland on behalf of Mitt Romney, Abel Maldonado, Larry Greenfield of the Republican Jewish Coalition, internet mogul Andrew Breitbart, a video appearance of filmmaker Evan Maloney, Shawn and Michelle Steel, and others. Voting for the new state chairman took place on Sunday, and resulted in a sweep of “Team Activate”, the slate headed by Ryan Clumpner, defeating the “Take Back CCR” slate, headed by BCR’s own Josiah Prendergast. Here’s some photographic evidence of the good times enjoyed by all!

Voting during the convention

Myself and Breitbart

My highlights: enjoying the Mr Maloney’s presentation-via-video regarding his upcoming movie “Indoctrinate U” that deals with censorship and discrimination of conservatives on college campuses. Also, the amusing albeit random/rambling speech given by Breitbart about meeting Matt Drudge and being a part of the internet’s early boom during the Lewinski era. And of course, the socializing. I enjoyed both’s slate’s hospitality suites. I didn’t know until that weekend that Bennigan’s was an actual restaurant!

Some of the men of BCR

Some of the women of BCR

So this is old news by now, but Rudy Giuliani announced his intended candidacy for President this week and was on Fox news on Tuesday I believe. I happened to turn it on and listened to some of what he had to say. I feel like he presented himself very articulately and well, especially on some of the more contentious issues for social conservatives, like gay rights, gun control, and abortion.

The two fairly clear sides are those who feel a more moderate candidate will split the Republican ticket, paving the way for whoever the Dems nominate, and the others who� believe he (or another such McCainesque moderate) is the ticket to defeating Hillary. So far, some polls show Giuliani ahead of McCain, 34% to McCains 22%, followed by 15% percent for Gingrich, actually. This RealClearPolitics poll showed only a 5% lead over McCain, with the third pick being Romney at around 6%.

However, we all know that polls are polls, and whoever gets out of the Republican gate will still have to race the Democrat’s horse, although it likely won’t be a dark one. I looked (albeit perfunctorily) through some Google searches for some Clinton/Obama/Edwards poll numbers (or anyone else) but the internet wouldn’t give up it’s secrets to me easily. That and I’m lazy. However, something interesting I did find on Mr. Obama. It’s no secret that he’s got Muslim heritage, and that he attended an “Islamic School” when he was younger, nor is it secret that he has had brushes with drugs. You would think both would be equally concerning to voters right? This article highlights that the Muslim issue apparently interests internet searchers more. Of millions of Obama searches on the internet in the last four weeks, the top five searches had a mention of the Muslim connection, while none of the top 20 hits concerned the drug issue. Call it a concern based on the current war, ‘islamophobia’, or whatever you want, but it’s on American’s minds. It’s just one article though, don’t get all jumpy.

This should be an interesting race due to the speeded-up primaries and lack of any incumbents. New blood should be interesting though. So what does everyone think? Who will get the Dems/Repubs nominations? Will we vote for an African-American, a woman, or a religious minority? Should Hillary stop wearing the pants?

Yesterday at our BCR meeting, the board hosted an early Primary to help members sort out the potential Republican candidates. The format was statement, crossfire, and a final vote, and the results were interesting. Candidates to support included Brownback, McCain, Giuliani, Romney, and “Dark Horse”. Supporters for Brownback were non-existant (Because Fullmer wasn’t there), but the other camps were fairly evenly divided.

After initial statements and some crossfire, the trend of the evening seemed to be differentiating between representing traditional conservatism and defeating Hillary. Those in the Romney camp as well as half the dark horse-ers favored defending conservative principles, while some of the McCains and Giulianis compromised on social conservatism as a way to defeat Hillary (who actually got one vote during the evening).

Our primary had Romney win in the initial voting rounds and again in a run-off, but not by a huge margin. It was a thought-provoking discussion, and I was happy to see others are thinking similarly, as I found this morning. Right Wing News had a “Most & Least desired Republican candidates of 2008″ post where they surveyed a sampling of conservative bloggers. The voters ranked the candidates in a points system, and were given the following to select from, including any non-mentioned candidate:

Sam Brownback
John Cox
Jim Gilmore
Newt Gingrich
Rudy Giuliani
Chuck Hagel
Mike Huckabee
Duncan Hunter
John McCain
George Pataki
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Tommy Thompson

The lowest scores were dropped, and the votes for “Most desired” ended up something like this:�

14) John Cox (4)
13) Jeb Bush (5)
12) Jim Gilmore (5.5)
11) Ron Paul (8.5)
10) Condi Rice (11.5)
9) Mike Huckabee (14)
Tommy Thompson (15.5)
7) John McCain (19)
6) Sam Brownback (20)
5) Tom Tancredo (31.5)
4) Duncan Hunter (35.5)
3) Mitt Romney (43)
2) Rudy Giuliani (45)
1) Newt Gingrich (52)

Now I’m not just posting this to get back at the Romney folks from last night (I was in the Giuliani camp), but because the results are really interesting. Gingrich was one of our dark horses, as well as Tancredo. This may just be a result of internet-savvy people hearing more about the little guys than others, but maybe not. Now here’s what I’d like to do, if you don’t mind.

Please comment, of course, but list your pick. If you’re a Dem or an “other”, give us whatever analysis you’ve got on it. Sciency-types say that the outcome gets more “correct” the larger the population, and I’m curious.

Before this week, the only Republican that I would consider voting for (in the primary and in the general election) was Senator Chuck Hagel. Hagel’s a good guy, but I’ve changed my vote now that Congressman Ron Paul is in the running:

Rep. Ron Paul, the iconoclastic, nine-term lawmaker from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward a second, quixotic presidential bid _ this time as a Republican…

“There’s no question that it’s an uphill battle, and that Dr. Paul is an underdog,” Snyder said. “But we think it’s well worth doing and we’ll let the voters decide.”

Paul limits his view of the role of the federal government to those duties laid out in the Constitution. As a result, he sometimes casts votes at odds with his constituents and other Republicans.

Paul has been my favorite modern-day politician ever since I first got interested in politics back in high school. He’s a true libertarian, and he’s exactly what this country needs.

Given the excitement on sites from right-wing Free Republic, to left-wing Daily Kos, to geek-wing Digg, Paul can count on a diverse base that has been all but ignored by the mainstream media and pundits. 2008 will be the year the election will finally be decided by You, mobilized by grassroots blogs and sites like YouTube. This will be Howard Dean’s Internet fueled rise to the top, times 100, and without the meltdown. Get ready for a campaign like no other.

This country is tired of candidates like Mitt and McCain and Hillary and Obama. We don’t want more of the same. I look forward to finally being able to vote for someone I actually want and believe in.

Statewide
Arnold Schwarzenegger easily defeated Phil Angelides. I was hoping his coattails could help McClintock or Strickland get it but that did not happen. Steve Poizner was elected Insurance Commissioner but a candidate would have to be pretty bad to lose to Cruz Bustamante.

Bruce McPherson, the only other Republican incumbent lost. I am relatively happy with that, especially after I saw him speak in Political Science 179 last semester. Among my problems with him is his support for in state tuition for illegal immigrants.

I wish a few of the bond measures would have gone down, but that was not the case. I am happy the cigarette and oil taxes went down. Prop 85 lost by a larger margin then last year’s 73.

The National Scene
Republicans did a lot of things to merit losing. Outrageous spending, increasing government programs, and lack of Social Security reform are a few of the culprits. The situation in Iraq swayed a few voters. The scandals including Jack Abramoff and Mark Foley did not help. The cover up by leaders in the house did not bolster confidence either.

I would not call the election results a realignment of politics, as much as the rejection of the current elected officials’ group performance. A lot of moderates picked up seats.

Six years ago I was excited. Republicans had control of both Houses and the Presidentancy. In ‘02 and ’04 they went against the tide and picked up even more seats. Along the way they lost the Republican values that were swept into office so dramatically in ’94. I want a new Contract with America for 2008.

I don’t think Democratic control of the Congress will mean a significant new policy direction. I did not hear a unified plan before the election. They will be contending with an opposing President and his veto. Also both sides will be preoccupied with the ’08 election. The Democrats will look for every possible way to build on their momentum and the Republicans will be looking for a President since no Vice President is waiting in the wings.

What are your complaints about the past and hopes for the future? What do you think the Democrats will get done with Speaker Pelosi and majority leader Reid?

Daniel McCarthy has a devastating piece on College Republicans and campus conservatives in the latest issue of The American Conservative:

The young men and women of the Right aren’t reading much Richard Weaver these days—nor much Robert Nisbet or Russell Kirk, to name two other seminal conservative thinkers critical of modern warfare. The time when Young Americans for Freedom wore badges blazoned with the slogan “Don’t Immanentize the Eschaton” has long passed. Now College Republicans parade in shirts proclaiming “George W. Bush Is My Homeboy.” The campus Right has almost always been more activist than intellectual, just as the wider movement has been more political than cultural. But where once students were at least familiar with the names Kirk and Weaver, or Mises and Nock, today they look to Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter for guidance. They’re little acquainted with the wisdom of the contemporary Right’s founding generation, and it shows…

The predominance of the CRs predictably gives college conservatism a partisan slant—a CR chapter is an unlikely place to find criticism of Bush from the Right. What’s more, the CRs naturally put a low premium on encouraging students to read the canon of intellectual conservatism—whose works, after all, are more concerned with history, literature, and philosophy than with practical politics. From the point of view of a campus activist, “Why should I spend my time reading about Albert Jay Nock or Irving Babbitt, when I could be out changing the world?” asks Emporia State University Professor Gregory Schneider, a historian of the conservative youth movement….

A casual acquaintance with the conservative canon wouldn’t change any College Republican’s mind. But students who seek a fuller knowledge will find little in the conservative intellectual tradition that accords with George W. Bush’s view of the world and America’s place in it. Increasingly, conservatives over the age of 65—including George Will, Milton Friedman, Jeffrey Hart, and Bill Buckley himself—have come to see the Iraq War as folly. If students critically engage the works of the wisest men of an even older Right, they too may be forced to conclude that George W. Bush is no conservative all—or else that Kirk and Weaver, like James Lawrence, are really leftists.

A lot of good history in the article. And, more importantly, a lot of unfortunate truths.

Is the state of college conservatism really as intellectually empty as this article portrays it to be? Or is it worse? Comment away.

The progressive Washington Monthly magazine has published an issue full of articles from conservatives. The feature is entitled “Time For Us To Go: Conservatives on why the GOP should lose in 2006.”

Bruce Bartlett says: “Bring on Pelosi.” Joe Scarborough sighs: “And we thought Clinton had no self-control.” Bruce Fein demands: “Restrain this White House.”

My favorite came from Christopher Buckley, son of anti-Bush conservative hero William F. Buckley of the National Review, and brain behind the recent movie Thank You for Smoking. His essay is entitled “Let’s quit while we’re behind.” Allow me to excerpt the great conclusion:

What have they done to my party? Where does one go to get it back?
One place comes to mind: the back benches. It’s time for a time-out. Time to hand over this sorry enchilada to Hillary and Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden and Charlie Rangel and Harry Reid, who has the gift of being able to induce sleep in 30 seconds. Or, with any luck, to Mark Warner or, what the heck, Al Gore. I’m not much into polar bears, but this heat wave has me thinking the man might be on to something.

My fellow Republicans, it is time, as Madison said in Federalist 76, to “Hand over the tiller of governance, that others may fuck things up for a change.”

(Or was it Federalist 78?)

Can’t deny the logic.