E!! The True Conservative Story™

In the midst of all the in-fighting over whether social conservatives and the religious right have ”ruined” the Republican party, the American Conservative Union has re-published an interesting piece by Randall Hoven (originally printed at American Thinker).

I don’t talk much about my faith here on E!!  but as a Christian conservative with a libertarian streak, I am always interested in these kinds of debates.  Generally speaking I’m a social and cultural conservative, but I am cautious about state-mandated morality (because it can cut both ways) and often find myself defending freedom itself as an important right and virtue.

This is because I believe that (1) God grants us freedom and free will, (2) God grants us free will for a reason, and (3) Jesus Christ was not an Authoritarian. 

Free will is meaningless if people aren’t free to choose wrong as well as right, evil as well as good.  (Please don’t interpret this to mean I support anarchy; I don’t.)  We can and should legislate behavior to keep people from unduly harming one another, but we really can’t legislate matters of morality and conscience and spirit.  A man’s heart and mind cannot be taken by force; he must give it freely.

Jesus never strong-armed or forced anyone into listening to him, following him, or believing in him.  He spoke the truth with grace, closed his remarks with something pithy like “go and sin no more,” and that was basically it.  You were either touched and moved by what he said or not - but he didn’t chase you down the street, and he didn’t appeal to Rome to turn the Beautitudes into the law of the land. 

Anyway, check out Hoven’s piece and let me know what you think about his views.  I’d be interested to hear from so-cons as well as libertarians.

Strange that a British writer - Peter Hitchens - is the one to re-break my heart re: election night with this piece in the Daily Mail. 

Hat Tip:  Derb, who provides the column’s four paragraph close

The Muthster lays it out clean in his post “Turning the Bush-McCain Lemon Into Lemonade.”

And I LOVE the idea of Michael Steele as national chair of the RNC.  (Or Newt.)

 Leslie Carbone has a very moving post up over at dontgomovement.com.  I like her passion.

Many are saying this election was a failure of Conservatism.  Not so.  It was the product of poor Republican leadership and big government policies.  Fiscal discipline went out the window.  Earmarks were snatched up eagerly.  Corruption scandals sprang up too often.  Communication and message management were poor.

In short, the Republican party became undisciplined, greedy, weak and ineffective.  This dirtied and eroded the Republican brand such that it became unrecognizable and uninspiring. 

We need new leadership.  We need new voices and/or the renewing and rejuvination of existing voices.  Our elected officials need to stop concerning themselves with power grabs, pandering, and placating.  We must unapologetically and unashamedly stand on True Conservative values.

We need to get back to basics and get on message, recognizing that effective and persuasive communication matters.  As Laura Ingraham said today, “We must cultivate a new generation of leaders who are both proud of their conservative beliefs and comfortable articulating them with vision, clarify and optimism.” 

I hereby invoke part of Russell Kirk’s introduction to Ten Conservative Principles:

Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers.

I have always loved Kirk’s Ten and that intro.  Not an ideology but ”a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the social order.”

Conservatives are skeptical of change for its own sake and will always pause to ask, “but what are the unintended consequences?”  Conservatives value that which has been good, and is good, and are not eager to dismiss that good in favor of untested new ideas.  Conservatives are open minded but cautious.  Social experiments are looked upon with great skepticism.  As Kirk later writes:

Therefore the intelligent conservative endeavors to reconcile the claims of Permanence and the claims of Progression. He thinks that the liberal and the radical, blind to the just claims of Permanence, would endanger the heritage bequeathed to us, in an endeavor to hurry us into some dubious Terrestrial Paradise. The conservative, in short, favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose votaries believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old.

Just so.

Kathleen Parker chimed in on the Christopher Buckley thing.  A very well written piece, and I agree with much (though not all) of it.

Let me be clear that I have no issue with Buckley’s complaints against and dissatisfaction with the Republican party.  In these things I agree with him and am similarly disgruntled.

My criticism was not of the fact that Buckley left National Review; it was the way he left.

And, though his vote is his own, I don’t think it makes sense to show your disgust for the lack of conservatism in the GOP by voting for the candidate/party who has even less of it.

UPDATE:  As for the “shunning” of conservatives like Buckley, I have to agree with what Rich Lowry said just a bit ago, mentioning both Kathleen and Peggy Noonan:

In her Palin-centered column, Peggy says those “whose thoughts lead them to criticism in this area are to be shunned, and accused of the lowest motives,” and then cites Christopher’s resignation from his NR column as an example. Peggy is a busy person, so I suppose she hasn’t had time to notice that Kathleen Parker’s columns ripping Sarah Palin have appeared on NRO. That David Frum has aired his discontent with the Palin pick on NRO. That others of us—Ramesh and even me (between my occasional bouts of rhapsodic gushing!)—have criticized aspects of her performance. And that other writers on NRO have stuck up for Palin and pushed back against the critics. It’s called debate.

Now, I regret how some conservatives immediately question the motives of the critics of Palin, but it’s equally regrettable that Noonan, Parker et al are portraying most conservatives as irrational thugs. It makes you wonder: Who is really being overly emotional and deeply unfair in this intra-mural conservative debate? Which brings us naturally to Kathleen Parker’s column today. Read and judge for yourself. Is this calm, cool deliberation? Or hyperbole worthy of a peeved e-mailer? (By the way, I hate that Kathleen got any abusive e-mails at all; it’s a very unfortunate part of the world of the web. But hate e-mail goes both ways. I wouldn’t want to live for a minute with, say, Kathryn Lopez’s or Jonah Goldberg’s in-box on any given day.)

Finally, on Christopher, I already addressed it here. But he proffered a “sincere offer” of resignation of his column that he had taken up temporarily while Mark Steyn was on hiatus. It struck us as a win-win: Chris would get out of a column we thought he wanted out of; we’d get Mark Steyn, who had recently returned to writing, back on our back page. We never imagined Chris would feel he’d been “fatwa-ed.” In any case, Chris is still on NR’s board, and is welcome to write pieces for us going forward, which I’m hoping he’ll do after everyone, very much including the Noonans and Parkers of the world, takes a deep breath.

And BTW, I posted on what Peggy Noonan said earlier over at Culture11’s LadyBlog.

This post on the values of capitalism over on Overcoming Bias is just excellent.

It starts with this quote:

“The financial crisis is not the crisis of capitalism.  It is the crisis of a system that has distanced itself from the most fundamental values of capitalism, which betrayed the spirit of capitalism.”
        — Nicolas Sarkozy

and includes gems like:

The fundamental morality of capitalism lies in the voluntary nature of its trades, consented to by all parties, and therefore providing a gain to all.

and

Vigorous work is praiseworthy but should be accompanied by equally vigorous results.

and

No one has a right to their job.  Not the janitor, not the CEO, no one.  It would be like a rationalist having a right to their own opinion.  At some point you’ve got to fire the saddle-makers and close down the industry. 

and

No company has a right to its continued existence.  Change happens.

and

A high standard of living is the just reward of hard work and intelligence.  If other people or other places have lower standards of living, then the problem is the lower standard, not the higher one.  Raise others up, don’t lower yourself.  A high standard of living is a good thing, not a bad one - a universal moral generalization that includes you in particular.  If you’ve earned your wealth honestly, enjoy it without regrets.

and

People safeguard, nourish, and improve that which they know will not be taken away from them.  Tax a little if you must, but at some point you must let people own what they buy.

and

In countries that are lawful and just, the government is the referee, not a player.  If the referee runs onto the field and kicks the football, things are starting to get scary.

and

Making money is a virtuous endeavor, despite all the lies that have been told about it, and should properly be found in the company of other virtues.  Those who set out to make money should not think of themselves as fallen, but should rather conduct themselves with honor, pride, and self-respect, as part of the grand pageantry of human civilization rising up from the dirt, and continuing forward into the future.

Amen!

For more on the Christopher Buckley thing, here’s his latest post, and Rich’s note on The Corner yesterday.  (Don’t miss the part where Buckley changed the header of his post from the patently dishonest “I Was Fired” to the fully accurate ”Buckley Bows Out”)

Here’s my three cents:

(1)  Those who cancelled their subscription to National Review over this matter are being silly. The magazine’s value is not negated by what any one contributor (or ex-contributor) does or says on any one day. NR is more than a great conservative political journal; it his an American Icon. You’d no more stop reading it than you’d swear off apple pie and ice cream.

(2)  It appears that Christopher Buckley is exaggerating all over himself in an effort to create a stir and invite publicity as he breaks away into his brave new world.

What does Christopher mean by saying that Rich Lowry “rather briskly” accepted his resignation and that he is saddened by the “disavowal”?

Does he mean there was not a satisfactorily lengthy pause preceding Rich’s agreement to his departure?  Was Christopher’s ego disappointed at not receiving the expected number of murmured regrets and “it’s a damn shame”s?

Or did he think, as I suspect, that his resignation would not be accepted?  Was the act more a gesture than a genuine offer, and is he now in a snit because Rich and Jack Fowler had the ill manners to take him at his word?

Regardless, to say there was/is “acrimony” on the part of NR is surely going too far. I’ve seen nothing but friendship and warmth extended Buckley’s way from everyone at NR and on The Corner, so the insinuation that there is an air of rancor and animosity feels like Complete and Utter Nonsense.

(3)  There is much more that could be said in re: to Christopher’s comments about WFB’s occasional support of liberal Democrats (all far better men than Obama appears to be), rigorous standards of candor (which Junior seems to be lacking), and independence of thought and action (which were genuine and never for show).

But, it is all well known. WFB was a singular man. He was always himself, and never embarrassed or dishonored his friends (or even his enemies) by being small of heart or deed.

The son does not honor the father with all this elaborate and unpleasant flailing around.  A graceful exit would have been a more fitting tribute to the man we all loved…and miss terribly in these difficult days.

(UPDATE: Anne of Idaho, who is reading D.H. Lawrence, sends an unrelated yet serendipitous quote.

“And he began to feel, coldly and cynically, that among all her distress there was a luxuriating in the violent emotions of the scene in hand, and the situation altogether.”

Re-stated: Christopher Buckley is being a drama queen, and it is causing me to feel more indifferent to his plight than I otherwise might.)

Written Friday night, soon after scanning the latest polls and reading that Chris Buckley is casting a vote for Obama:

Rich ~ I ask your indulgence with this entire email.  I know we don’t know one another and that a handful of emails from me to you over the years, and you occasionally responding “thanks,” don’t really justify what is to follow.

But, you are the editor of National Review, and tonight I am a distraught conservative, so here it is:

I got tears in my eyes reading Chris Buckley’s whole post.

Chris seems cheerful enough about all this, so it’s not for him I cry. His dear father is no doubt quite content (and causing some kind of harmless mischief) in the great Hereafter, so no need for tears there.

I feel a sense of grief and loss; what is it…?

Chris Buckley is wrong; of that I am sure; but still it feels sad.

It seems to me that the splintering of the conservative movement, and its mixed political fortunes, and a sort of crisis of identity, have led us here. Fractured, floundering, weak, perhaps conservatism no longer knows what It is and so cannot inspire and compel as it once did. (I am so tired of talk of the Big Tent…)

It seems to me attempts at fusionism have (so far) failed: if McCain is the prototype and/or product, surely we must admit that? Chris Buckley admits it, with gusto: he now throws his hat in the ring for the uber-liberal senator from Illinois, saying Obama is preferable to the inauthentic and often unconservative McCain.

Is Obama to be elected and are we conservatives to be banished to the fringe, then, as we once were? For decades the establishment ignored us. Only because of Bill Buckley and then with Reagan did history really take note.

But what principle, what policy, what politician, what philosopher will unite us now?

From 1944 to 1991 we were held together by the glue of anticommunism. Barry Goldwater tried to carry the torch onward; Frank Meyer’s fusionism attempted the same and seems to live on in the postmodern pursuit of authenticity through freedom and virtue.

But. An inclusive doctrine - which conservatism has become - though seemingly practical, can lend itself to problems. Indeed, can anyone deny that we have landed ourselves in quite a spot?

When someone like Chris Buckely throws all hierarchies out the proverbial window and says he is voting for Obama, what then?

Has the postwar conservative intellectual movement lost its way; will it now become unrecognizable?

What has become of American conservatism?

Victor Davis Hanson is always worth the read.  Today’s column is on the basic lessons we can learn from the financial mess.

An excerpt:

The new national gospel became charge now/pay later and speculate, rather than put something away in case of a downturn. To provide more goodies that we hadn’t earned, politicians ignored soaring annual budget deficits and staggering national debt and kept spending.

The lessons:

First, cash really is king. For all the talk of a trillion here or billions there, when the crunch came, many of these investment houses and their once-strutting managers found themselves with a minus net worth. They were desperate to find liquidity — any money anywhere they could find it. Pedestrian passbook savings accounts proved wiser investments than all the clever hedge funds, derivatives, and sub-prime schemes put together.

And:

Second, wisdom and blue-chip college educations are not quite the same thing. The fools in Washington and New York who blew up Wall Street had degrees from our finest professional schools.

And:

Third, we as a nation need to relearn the old notion of shame — as in “shame on you!” Firms like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns were once responsible Wall Street institutions, built up over decades by sober men. But their far-lesser successors in just a few months have bankrupted these venerable brokerage houses — with seemingly no shame at what they have done to the image of Wall Street.

Americans used to pay their debts. Somewhere in all the blame-gaming about the crooks and liars in New York and Washington, we never hear that real people borrowed real money that they should not have. And they then defaulted on what they owed to others. Walking away from debts may have been understandable, but it was also a violation of trust — and wrong.

If no bailout bill is passed and no other/better solution can be agreed upon, I am just fine with having us (and the rest of the world) go into a recession where everyone becomes more financially conservative and/or moderate. 

If I personally have to lose a little in the short term, so be it.  It’s what is best and wisest in the big picture that matters.  “Principle over pain.”

(Note to Chris Matthews on his statement that Dems “overwhelmingly” voted for the bailout bill:  sixty percent is not overwhelming.  In fact, I’d say it’s rather underwhelming.)

 I keep reading commentary, even in respected conservative forums, that Paulson’s gigantic bailout plan is bad, and admittedly un-conservative, but that we must do “something” and the alternative is too dreadful to contemplate.

 As Colonel Potter used to say, “Horse-hockey!”  

  Protecting the long-term value of the American dollar is more important than a quick fix.  So is teaching our bankers, traders and lawmakers that the government is not going to bail them out of future messes.  If there’s a pot of government gold at the end of every financial rainbow, what’s to stop everyone from chasing the green leprechaun again?

  Federal action is warranted, but the focus should be less on debt and more on protecting present and future capital.  If we go about this rationally and take this opportunity to promote pro-growth policies and tax reform, investors will respond to the prospect of higher future returns.  It’s that simple.

  Conservatives:  we cannot abandon our principles in times of crisis. We must remain steady at the wheel.

After supporting a huge sales tax hike in Cali and quashing the last vestiges of conservative hope for him, Governator Schwarzenegger has slightly redeemed himself.

Prior to signing the new budget into law, Arnold used his line-item veto to totally eliminate the U of California Institute for Labor and Employment. Conservatives in the state say the institute was being used to push pro-union, anti-worker propaganda using taxpayer dollars.

All gone!

(H/T:  Friends of ATR blog)

E!! is going to be offline thru Sunday while I go have fun in my role as Media Liason for the Conservative Leadership Conference (and also try to catch a few panel discussions) here in fabulous Las Vegas.

I’m looking forward to meeting Michael Brodkorb, the mind behind “Minnesota Democrats Exposed” who has been chosen to receive the conference’s annual Blogger of the Year Award. 

Also will be very happy to finally shake hands with Blue Collar Muse and the Much Younger Trophy Wife I have heard so much about, as well as with Eric Odom.

A few other speakers/attendees I hope to catch a word with (there are too many to name them all): WSJ writer and author John Fund, Paul Seidler of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Steve Miller of NPRI, instructor Michael Tanner of The CATO Institute, Grover Norquist and Sandra Fabry of Americans for Tax Reform, Joel Mowbray, Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth, Roger Hedgecock, Lt. Col. Allen West, Bob Barr, Richard Viguerie, Ward Connerly of the American Civil Rights Institute, Rich Galen of Mullings.com, Chris Simcox of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps, Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, NV GOP Chairwoman Sue Lowden, David Keene of the American Conservative Union, and AZ Rep. John Shadegg.   

Andrew Klavan and Queen Victoria   – posted by [Peter Robinson] @ The Corner @ NRO

Today on Uncommon Knowledge, novelist and screenwriter Andrew Klavan, author of the new thriller, Empire of Lies, explains why he’s no longer a liberal:

The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine.

Leftism has outlived its own failure by hiding itself within the most labyrinthine construct of social delicacy since Victoria was queen.

To watch that Victorian contsruct of social delicacy being utterly demolished — brilliantly and merrily  — click here. 

Whenever some Postmodern New Conservative annoys me with their “Down With the Establishment” and “Up With Me” rhetoric, I turn to one of the greats, like Kirk, or WFB, or Hayek, or Freidman, or Burke, or John Adams.  Here’s Kirk on Conservatism:

“Being neither a religion nor an ideology, the body of opinion termed conservatism possesses no Holy Writ and no Das Kapital to provide dogmata. So far as it is possible to determine what conservatives believe, the first principles of the conservative persuasion are derived from what leading conservative writers and public men have professed during the past two centuries…

“Perhaps it would be well, most of the time, to use this word “conservative” as an adjective chiefly. For there exists no Model Conservative, and conservatism is the negation of ideology: it is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at the civil social order.

“The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata. It is almost true that a conservative may be defined as a person who thinks himself such. The conservative movement or body of opinion can accommodate a considerable diversity of views on a good many subjects, there being no Test Act or Thirty-Nine Articles of the conservative creed.

In essence, the conservative person is simply one who finds the permanent things more pleasing than Chaos and Old Night. (Yet conservatives know, with Burke, that healthy “change is the means of our preservation.”) A people’s historic continuity of experience, says the conservative, offers a guide to policy far better than the abstract designs of coffee-house philosophers…”

On the subject of how disastrous a failed black president could/would be, see this ad by the Black Republican PAC.  I believe our first black president should be, and will be, a True Conservative.

Who and Where are you, Sir?

So…what are you doing on September 18-21, 2008?

If your answer is “nothing, why?” then may I suggest that you attend the 2008 Conservative Leadership Conference at the Tuscany Suites Resort in Las Vegas?  The event is being co-hosted by Citizen Outreach and Americans for Tax Reform.  The Honorary Conference Chairman is Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona.

CLC is a yearly gathering of conservatives and libertarians focused on bridging differences and finding common ground in their mutual desire to limit government - as well as discussing the best political means of achieving that goal.

Your truly (yes, E!!) has been asked to be the Press Liason so I will be hanging around assisting the media (and anyone else in need) all weekend.  I’d love to meet any/all of you so please stop by and say Hello if you can.

Confirmed speakers for CLC ’08 include (to name just a few):

*  Bob Barr, Libertarian Party candidate for President
*  Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party candidate for President
*  Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform
*  Rich Galen of Mullings.com
*  John Fund of the Wall Street Journal
*  Richard Viguerie, author of “Conservatives Betrayed”
*  Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth
*  Talk-show host Roger Hedgecock
*  David Keene of the American Conservative Union
*  Ward Connerly of the American Civil Rights Institute
*  Paul Jacob of the Sam Adams Alliance
*  Former Congressman and talk-show host J.D. Hayworth
*  Chris Simcox of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps
*  Erick Erickson of RedState.org
*  Matt Sheffield of Newsbusters.org
*  Danny Vargas or the Republican National Hispanic Assembly
*  Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute

Over the course of the weekend there will be an Exhibit Hall featuring a variety of conservative organizations and vendors, various policy panels and workshops, book-signings, “live” radio broadcasts, awards, keynote addresses, luncheons, BBQs, banquets, raffles, etc. 

Saturday night’s gala banquet will be held at the Venetian and will feature the annual “State of the Conservative Union” address by a major conservative figure.  (I know who they’ve invited and if he says Yes, you will Definitely want to be there!)

To find out more and/or register, click HERE or call (202) 558-7162.

My Inbox is full of joyous emails from Nevada conservatives.  Here’s what they’re so darn happy about:

GOOD-BYE TO YOU:  Everyone is just delighted that incumbent Republican Assemblywoman Francis Allen - who refused to sign the Taxpayer Protection Pledge and also embarrassed herself and her supporters by recently stabbing her husband in a drunken rage - lost to Republican challenger Richard McArthur (who not only signed the Pledge but campaigned on it).  McArthur stomped Allen by a 2-1 margin.

BOB “LITE” BEERS IS OFF THE SHELF:  Mr. Beers reluctantly signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge after he was elected in 2006 - and then immediately broke it during the 2007 legislative session.  Beers lost by a 2-1 margin to Republican Jonathan Ozark (who signed the Pledge).

JUST MARVELLOUS:  Another victory worth noting is that of former Republican Assemblyman Don Gustavson who defeated incumbent Republican Assemblyman John Marvel.  Marvel also broke HIS Tax Pledge by flip-flopping and voting for the gigantic tax hike in 2003.

Everyone’s glad that three Pretend Republicans have been replaced (subject to general election wins) by fiscally conservative Republicans.

SQUEAKER:  In the State Senate, Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio pulled out a close one over Republican challenger and former Assemblywoman Sharron Angle.  Despite 30 years of service to his district, his strong leadership position, and outspending his opponent by more than 10-1, Raggio only won by around 500 votes.  (”whew!”)

CHAOS AVERTED:  In a closely-watched county commission race, GOP leaders dodged a proverbial bullet when former Clark County Chairman Brian Scroggins beat longtime Commissioner Bruce Woodbury…whose name was still on the ballot despite being ruled ineligible by the state’s new term limits law.  Had Woodbury won, debates would have raged over who would replace Woodbury on the general election ballot.  Now the party can just unite behind Scroggins.

KIDS AND PARENTS - VICTORY #1:  Many of you may know that the Nevada State Board of Education voted last December to slap a moratorium on the approval of any new charter schools, despite Very long waiting lists.  Under pressure, the Board lifted its moratorium at their meeting last weekend. 

#2:  Four of the nine Board members who voted against charter schools opted not to even seek re-election - including Harry Reid’s daughter-in-law, Cindy Reid.  And then yesterday Board member Barbara Myers lost to challenger Dave Cook in a three-way primary fight.  The two will meet again in November with Myers the likely loser.  Which means the Board could end up with six new members who, hopefully, won’t be as anti-school choice and anti-education as the last one. 

Does all this bode well for Conservatives in November?  Perhaps.  For today, we’ll enjoy the Victory - and continue to Hope. 

Literary ref from header:  “And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!’ He chortled in his joy. …”

There’s one in every crowd.  Or in this case, five…Republicans, that is, who are muddying the waters of the clearest issue facing the GOP this fall:  energy and offshore drilling.  In response to voter discontent over high gas prices and polling near 80% in favor of offshore drilling, the majority of GOP has (wisely) gone after the Dem anti-drillers in the House.  Enthusiasm for the cause has given new life to conservative candidates who were losing oxygen in tight races.

Enter Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Thune (R-SD), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Isakson (R-GA) who, along with five Senate Democrats, have announced that their ”Gang of 10″ wants a “sweeping” and “bipartisan” energy plan to break the ”stalemate.”  Sounds good, right? 

Not really.  The bill says new production on offshore federal lands would be left to the state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hoops and hurdles are huge.  The bill prohibits drilling within 50 miles of the coast — keeping some of our most potentially productive areas closed.  ANWR would still be  a no-go. AND the plan contains $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and handouts for alternative fuels and renewables…to be paid for (drum roll) by raising taxes on oil companies!

Boys, we’ve been over this umpteen times:  we need to open up all lands in all coastal states, keep the red tape to a minimum, drill wherever the oil is, tap ANWR, and get it straight that raising taxes on oil companies means raising the price of gas for consumers, because Big Oil will just pass the hikes down to the man at the pump.

These five Republicans need to re-think their agenda and quick, before November voters hit the ballot booths.  If you wish to express your thoughts and feelings to any of the senators, here are links to their contact pages:

Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.)
John Thune (R-S.D.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.)
Mary Landrieu (D-La.)
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga)
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)

I just love a good David-and-Goliath story.  And as a blogger at Blogivists and friend of Eric Odom, I’ve got a front row seat to a good one.  Strap in and hold on tight as we go on a whirlwind tour of the recent refusal of House Republicans to adjourn without voting on offshore drilling, the #dontgo Twitter tag movement, an attempted sabotage of #dontgo by MoveOn.org and the subsequent launch of a hot new conservative website.  The story goes like this:

Two Fridays ago, Madame Pelosi ajourned the House over GOP objections.  Dems sprinted for the door like kids on the last day of school.  The mics were silenced; the lights were unlit; the CSPAN cameras were killed.  Even so, a few GOPers who wanted a vote on offshore drilling refused to leave the Floor.  Rep. Culberson (R-TX) and Rep. Hoekstra (R-MI) started Twittering (mini-blogging) while Rep. Boehner (R-OH) addressed those still present and Rep. Blunt (R-MO) talked to reporters in the press gallery.

Meanwhile, back in Chicago, a couple of regular guys - Eric Odom and Allen Fuller - threw up the Twitter tag “#dontgo” so the mini-blog reports and emails coming in could be easily searched/tracked.  The tag was chosen to support the GOP hold-outs, as in “don’t go until something is done on energy.”  Reps and staffers started using #dontgo to call the action.  Though the CSPAN cameras were dead, some video of the goings-on was captured on Rep. Culberson’s cell phone and broadcast on qik.com. 

Word began to spread.  MoveOn.org got wind of the Twitter feed and started spamming with irrelevant messages - but rather than jamming #don’tgo, all the spam pushed the tag to the top of Twitter’s list.  (Rob Neppell has since created a low-on-spam version of the Twitter Stream so it is virtually spam free.)

As the Twitter community chirped on, Fuller purchased the domain name dontgo.us; Odom installed WordPress, created some graphics, and wrote some copy and petition (sign here!); and the two took the site Live and began sending out links.  Media forces like Media Lizzy helped Eric and Allen spread the word.  On Tuesday morning, encouraged by the momentum, the duo threw up a jazzier replacement website called Dontgomovement.com to serve as hub.  Thousands of hits started coming in and within a few hours, Eric was contacted by reporters from several major media outlets, including CNN.

The CNN story went live just after the site was opened up, and the story was followed by The Next Right, Red State, Politico, Michelle Malkin, HotAir, Washington Examiner, and scores of bloggers. This wave of attention sent more than 60,000 unique visits to the new site within 24 hours.  Eric has been swamped with emails and already has a good-sized (10,000) mailing list compiled.  The e-mail RSS subscriber list is about 1,200 strong and the #dontgo Twitter Army marches on.

And so it came to be that a couple of fast-on-their-feet guys planted a Twitter tag on Friday and by Wednesday, their new website had been slingshot into national media attention.  Bloggers and Twitterers and web publishers should take a page from that playbook.  This is the “New Media” at its best:  alert, agile and ready to fight the Giants.

The Hill is reporting that the Senate just passed the 2008 Fannie & Freddie Prop Up bill (72-13).  The monster housing bill will now go to the White House for W’s Johnny Hancock.  For what it’s worth, all 13 ’no’ votes were GOP-ers.  Senator DeMint (R-SC) had delayed the bill over objections to F & F lobby rights, but in the end the R’s struck a deal with the Dems and passed it.  

The bill will allow re-fi’s of up to $300 billion in distressed mortgages, give tax breaks galore in order to help the market, tighten future oversight of F & F - and (this is the real kicker) give the Treasury temporary authority to approve an unlimited line of credit for F & F.  Now isn’t that sweet?!  We, the taxpayers, are going to foot the bill for a bottomless pile of cash for two government-sponsored enterprises being run by people of questionable judgment.

If you wish to see this in a positive light, just read the first paragraph of today’s Washington Post story which says, “In a rare weekend session, the Senate today ended months of legislative wrangling and gave final approval to a sprawling housing bill that seeks to halt the steepest slide in home prices in a generation, rescue hundreds of thousands of families from foreclosure and restore confidence in the nation’s largest mortgage finance firms.”

(GAG!!)

Why-oh-why is it the job of Congress to interfere with the natural forces of the market, rescue people from foreclosure because they financed over-priced houses with adjusable-rate mortgages they now cannot afford, and restore confidence in two companies that probably deserve to fail due to poor management?  Where in the Constitution does it say that the State is responsible for protecting its citizens from the natural consequences of their own poor judgment?!!

The Nanny State gets fatter while our dependence upon her grows…

Here’s a strange fascination for this election season:  The Arizona Democratic party is using one of the GOP’s own to shred U.S. Rep John Shadegg (R-AZ) in this new campaign ad.  Set to the classic David Bowie song “Changes,” the ad includes quotes (and provides sound bytes) of controversial statements recently made by U.S. Congressman Dean Heller from Nevada (R-Carson City).

In a segment which first aired on KTVK-Channel 3 on March 3, Heller re-stated an old mantra about the men who go to D.C. only to become corrupted:  “Instead of changing Washington, Washington changed us.”  Then, on July 8 in the Las Vegas Review Journal, Heller expressed concern over the influence of trial lawyers, environmental lobbyists, and labor unions in Washington D.C. and said “its’ time to clean house in the Republican party” and “the next couple election cycles are going to do that.”

When first reported, Heller’s comments were seen either a gaffe or a bold move - depending on the hearer.

The Daily Kos snarked, “Dean Heller’s foot, meet Dean Heller’s mouth.”  Others in D.C. agreed and quickly came out against Heller’s remarks.

But Chuck Muth, one of Nevada’s best-known conservative pundits and a constituent in Heller’s district, supported Heller’s comments without equivocation. Muth blogged, “Longtime liberal columnist Michael Kinsley famously defined a “gaffe” in politics as “when a politician tells the truth.”  If you accept that definition, and I do, then Nevada Republican Rep. Dean Heller committed a gaffe of canyon-sized proportions this week.  I hope he keeps it up.”

As Muth told the Las Vegas Review Sun, “[Heller] was the first one to voice publicly what an awful lot of conservatives around the country are saying.”

Some in D.C. agree.  As reported here by PolitickerNV, The Club for Growth said “Heller is spot on” and cited cases in which Republicans are losing seats in special elections.  Spokesperson Soloveichik said, “We’re seeing a lot of housecleaning because people are disenchanted with what Republicans are doing.”  Referring to corruption scandals and lamenting that Republicans can no longer be taken seriously as stewards of fiscal conservatism, Soloveichik said, “They’ve abandoned their principles.”

My three cents?

I’ve been getting quite a few comments and emails from frustrated conservatives who believe money and power has corrupted many Rupublicans in Washintgon D.C. and that we should “throw the bums out.”  If their sentiments are shared, Shadegg and/or other Republicans may well have cause for c-c-c-Concern come November.

As reported by the Nevada Appeal here, about 90,500 Nevadans were out of work in June.  Our unemployment rate climbed to 6.4 percent - the highest level in more than 14 years.

Though this is bad for many residents of the state, it may be good news for Conservatives who worry that Nevada may turn Blue on this November’s electoral map.  As jobs stay scarce, businesses struggle to make payroll, and gas prices stay high, fiscal conservatism - including the desire for balanced budgets and lower taxes - will (should!) sieze the hearts and minds of those who might otherwise swing Left in both the state and national elections this fall…IF conservative candidates can convince constituents they stand for these values.

Lately I’ve been reading a lot of commentary suggesting that Conservatives need to get angry about the frightening Leftward socio-political swing our country is in danger of taking no matter who wins the election this fall - and to do/say something about it.  For a little taste of what this might look like, click below for my recent column/rant in Liberty Watch Magazine:

 http://www.liberty-watch.com/volume04/issue04/trueconservative.php

I think we must stick with the traditional ingredients of cold-filtered Conservatism and persuade people - through the intelligent and passionate presentation of facts and ideas - that it is well worth preserving.