by Lance Thompson

Among the mud flung between Democrat presidential candidates recently was the castigation by Hillary Clinton of Barack Obama’s statement that the Republicans were the party of ideas during the last few years, more so than the Democrats. Mrs. Clinton put out a radio ad stating that she thought the Democrats had plenty of good ideas, and that Republican ideas had resulted in the mess we’re in now. Oddly, I find myself in almost total agreement with the junior senator from New York.

I agree that Republican ideas are responsible for our current status. I only quibble with her characterization of that status. President Bush and the Republicans led the call for military response to the 11 September attacks. Hunting down the Taliban in Afghanistan was a presidential initiative. Deposing Saddam Hussein by military force was also championed by Bush and Republicans, though many Democrats also voted to authorize the use of force, including Senator Clinton. The troop surge, expertly commanded by General Petraeus, was also the chosen strategy of the Republican president, despite almost universal protest by Democrats, and it has yielded dramatic positive effects. Al Qaeda has been severely crippled in Iraq and around the world, democracy continues to strengthen in the land of a former enemy, and we have not had a follow-on attack on American soil since September 2001. We have Republican ideas to thank for that.

The "Bush tax cuts" were also supported by Republicans, a policy central to the tenets of conservative thought–that lowering taxes spurs investment, commerce and revenue. The tax cuts allowed us to weather the unprecedented blows of a major terrorist attack and back-to-back devastating hurricanes in the Gulf states. Our economy remained strong despite setbacks that would have derailed that of any other industrialized nation.

The Supreme Court has two new, gifted, Constitutionally originalist members–Justices Roberts and Alito–who were appointed by a Republican president and confirmed by a Republican majority in the Senate. They form, with Justices Thomas and Scalia, a strong conservative block in what is an increasingly influential branch of our government.

I also agree with Senator Clinton that Democrats have ideas, though they are diametrically opposed to those of the Republicans.

Democrats have all sorts of ideas for the war on terror. In the struggle with the free world’s most implacable enemy since Communism, the Democrats favor unilateral retreat from Iraq, Constitutional rights for terrorists, crippling limits on surveillance of suspected terrorists, "dialogue" with terrorist-supporting dictators like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. These ideas enjoy widespread support among Democrats.

For the economy, struggling with the challenge of the subprime mortgage mess and declining home values, the Democrats have more ideas. They want to raise taxes, though raising taxes seldom results in more revenue, and usually hobbles commerce and economic expansion. The Democrats favor raising the minimum wage, while opening the borders to illegal aliens who flood the labor market with cheap, undocumented labor. The combination punishes employers who play by the rules, and pulls the rug out from under citizens seeking entry level jobs.

Democrats have plenty of ideas–about the rights of convicted criminals, the wisdom of the United Nations, the place of religion in public life, what to teach our children in school, and the sanctity of Roe vs. Wade. Both parties are defined by the ideas that inform their platforms and candidates. The ideas that motivate Republicans are victory over Islamist terror, lower taxes, secure borders, and smaller government. The Democrats favor withdrawal from the war on terror, higher taxes, open borders, and big government. In November we’ll decide whose ideas become the policy of this nation.

by Lance Thompson

Ironically, the compressed 2008 primary schedule has resulted in an extended selection process–no candidate is running away with the race yet, though several are trailing into obscurity.

At this point, as voters of both parties realize they must eventually coalesce around one candidate, the choice is often between the candidate who is considered "electable" and the candidate who more closely represents the principles of the party.

In 2004, Howard Dean was much in line with the principles of the Democrats–strongly anti-war, supportive of socialized medicine, and an adherent to the priorities of the moveon.org party base. Nonetheless, the Democrats threw over Dean (even before his post-Iowa scream fest) for John Kerry, who was considered more "electable."

In 2003, when California voters chose to recall the hapless Democrat Governor Gray Davis, the GOP had two strong contenders to take his place. Arnold Schwarzenegger had worldwide popularity and solid gold electability. State Senator Tom McClintock, however, was a true, principled conservative with an agenda for change in California based on fiscal responsibility and small government. Republicans in the state voted overwhelmingly for Schwarzenegger, and now California has a Republican governor who is indistinguishable from a moderate Democrat.

In 1976, Ronald Reagan was clearly the flag bearer for conservatives, having governed California as a conservative, having written and broadcast his conservative ideas throughout the country, and advocating them at every public appearance. But the GOP nominated Gerald Ford, believing that his incumbent status made him more electable. Reagan’s convention speech pledging his support for Ford after the close-fought nomination process was a revelation, and ensured that Republicans would nominate the right man the next time.

For 2008, Republicans face a similar choice. Rudy Giuliani has been the front runner for months because of his reputation for cleaning up New York and his actions as mayor on September 11^th 2001. Both of these are legitimate accomplishments, but they do not necessarily reflect Republican principles. They are resume items that make him popular and electable. In fact, Giuliani is pro-choice, supported gun control in New York City, and conducted a very public affair while married.  

But Giuliani’s front-runner status is shifting to John McCain, a Vietnam veteran with an unswerving record of support for the war on the jihadists, and a reputation for going his own way. His own way includes voting against the Bush tax cuts, advocating relaxed immigration policy, and co-authoring the free speech-limiting McCain Feingold legislation. But McCain’s appeal to centrists and the main stream media, coupled with his maverick reputation and his recent surge make him appear electable.

Mitt Romney is pro-life, governed a blue state as a Republican, has a strong record of success in business and private enterprise, supports the current strategy and tactics in the terror war, supports tough immigration policy, supports gun rights and tax cuts–in other words, is the perfect embodiment of most conservative principles. He has won three primaries (Wyoming, Nevada, Michigan) and come in second in Iowa and New Hampshire. He has more delegates than any other GOP candidate, yet he is seldom referred to as a front runner. His change of heart on abortion, from pro-choice to pro-life, and his Mormon faith are often mentioned as barriers to his electability.

So Republicans will have to decide between electability, which is really just a subjective reflection of current polls and press coverage, and principle, which is a measure of character.

There are four possible outcomes. The first two stem from nominating a candidate believed to be "electable." He could win, and our party places in power a leader who has no loyalty to our principles and values, currently exemplified by Governor Schwarzenegger in California. Or our "electable" candidate could lose, thus disproving the single qualification that won him the nomination. Ask John Kerry supporters about that.

The other two possibilities stem from nominating a candidate who shares our values. It is possible that he could lose, but we could go home after the campaign with heads held high, because we fought for the things we believe and a man we believe in. Those who supported Ronald Reagan in 1976 saw their candidate miss the nomination, but they were proven right four years later when Reagan prevailed.

The fourth and final possibility is that we nominate the man of principle, campaign with all our hearts and souls, and he wins. We thus choose a leader who represents the values we live by and the principles we hold dear. Isn’t that what the whole process is supposed to be about?

=-=-=-=

Lance Thompson lives in Idaho and supports Mitt Romney for President.

They deem them their worst enemy who tells them the truth .

- Plato

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

The primary election has moved with light speed into the category of historic firsts: defiance of historical statistics, legitimate polling results, demographics and the usually dependable predictions of high-profile pundits on both the left and the right.

What is the common denominator? The answer is becoming more apparent with each passing day, with each passing media report. Absent empirical evidence to the contrary (which may or may not be arrived at any time soon – okay, not), the excitement being built up by the media has thus far been principally aimed at the Obama-Huckabee, McCain-Clinton maelstroms, and, taking a wild guess at the upcoming South Carolina outcome: Obama-Thompson.

An effective (but questionable) tool was used for the first time in the election process: user-generated video propelled two unprecedented debates. On July 23, 2007 via You-Tube, candidates from the Democratic Party faced citizens’ questions. There were no journalists, no panelists, and no filters (at least not in the Democratic debate) – just the people’s questions and the candidates’ answers. As The Weekly Standard noted, the YouTube Republican debate was depressing. To add insult to injury, CNN neglected to properly vet their “ordinary” citizens’ agendas.

Additionally, and unforgettably, the Democrats refused to debate on the Fox Network. This inflamed viewers and served to distance constituencies from their candidates, as well as causing doubt amongst voters and drawing mockery from conservatives.

Adding fuel to the information bonfire are the number of Internet blog rolls that have increased like a computer virus with pro, con, undecided, levelheaded and often nonsensical commentaries. One could click on any dot com or dot org and find opinion editorials and/or lectures about every aspect of each candidate, from Hillary Clinton’s hairdo to, well, Mitt Romney’s hairdo and his faith.

Still and all, it remains that the MSM is the principal force driving the results of our national election in much the same way they disburse the daily news: skewed, slanted, inflammatory, and meant to produce specific negative results for conservatives and sane Democrats. Compounding the confusion amidst the radical opinions, the liberal mainstream media, in their standard undignified haste and lack of moral calling, are helter-skelter striking dumb the voters in Primary states, or even striking with purpose the dumb voters. It’s becoming more difficult to tell the difference. Piling on to this idiocy, the Daily Kos has suggested Democrats vote for Mitt Romney in the Michigan primary “because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us.” The Kos may unwittingly Cause a result they hadn’t banked on.

The MSM are prematurely birthing a successor to the same person they have painstakingly demonized for eight years -- George W. Bush – and it’s only January.

At the same time, the media, in concert with the Democratic Congress and their voodoo princess Nancy Pelosi (whose collective aim is to dismember the Protect America Act prior to its expiration on February 5, 2008), continue their efforts with sightless resolve to demoralize Americans and curtail or garble warnings issued by security agencies both here and abroad of terrorist uprisings and invasions.

Democrats, strongly supported by the liberal media, portend that those who stand in opposition to them are politicizing issues and are therefore accused of being puppets of the Oval Office. The cloister of Congress has even gone as far as stabbing in the heart official reports (i.e., hard evidence) delivered by Intelligence officials such as Mike McConnell and General David Petraeus in order to obscure the truth. And what was the gratitude shown the General for his devotion to America’s well-being? The wholly unmerited moniker of “General Betray Us” dished out by the low-lifes at MoveOn.org.

Likewise, the media, in turn supported and egged on by this nifty Congress, took perverse glory at any hint of failure on the part of President Bush . This has been particularly so since the invasion of Iraq . They pounce on him at every opportunity like near-sighted Ninja, or as we call it, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Agenda.

These are the same groups and individuals in command of the Republican and Democratic primaries for this presidential election – who think only in the moment and not in the years to come. They are the same groups and individuals who refuse to “carry the can” when it comes to responsible journalism, and are fanatically devoted to the sacrifice of common sense. The most disturbing point is constituents for both political parties might be buying the poison they print.

If voters allow themselves to be swept away by the undertow of the liberal media’s influence to elect a buffoon (or buffooness) as our next Commander in Chief, then “We, the People” deserve the Super-Duper Tuesday results.

by Lance Thompson

Primary season has just started, and it turns out very few predictions from the pundits over the preceding weeks and months came true.

At the beginning of this long campaign, Hillary versus Rudy was supposedly a foregone conclusion. She had the Clinton name, she was married to the Democrats’ star player and campaigner, she was owed favors by party stalwarts in every state, and she was widely recognized as the most likely nominee. Rudy was the mayor who cleaned up the Big Apple, then stood tall when his city was the target of the worst terrorist attack in history. His speech at the 2004 GOP convention was lighthearted, confident, and connected with regular people–he had the aura of rising star.

If Hillary and Rudy are still on top of the national polls, they can feel the breath of rivals on the backs of their necks. This isn’t how it was supposed to be.

Mike Huckabee was a second-tier candidate with a bad record on taxes and immigration, no money and no organization, running on a wing and a prayer. The pundits all dismissed him, but he connected with the voters, and he’s in with the in crowd.

John McCain was too old, voted against Bush’s tax cuts, was soft on immigration, and was foolish enough to put his name on McCain-Feingold bill. McCain has staged a comeback worthy of a Rocky movie, all predictions to the contrary.

Barack Obama wasn’t challenging Hillary enough, he was too deferential, didn’t have the experience–if you believed the professional political analysts. Instead, Obama deftly maneuvered around a slow-reacting Hillary to win Iowa and come close to taking New Hampshire.

Now, with each new primary, pundits are busily turning the momentary into the momentous, and turning every unpredictable instance into an undeniable trend. Rudy, once the presumptive nominee, is now finished, even though he has yet to be tested in a state where he chose to campaign seriously. Mitt Romney, who has finished in the one or two spot in every contest, is written off as not having connected with voters. Hillary, who was pronounced dead after Iowa, is on an upswing and may be unstoppable again.

All this tells us is that the states who spent much of the interval between elections leap frogging toward New Year’s Day in order to "have a say" in the process have attained what they wanted. The nominees of both parties are still uncertain, no real trend has developed, and the race is still up in the air.

One benefit of a bruising primary is that the contests bring the candidates into sharper relief, relative to each other. Supporters learn more about their candidates when they are battling hard for the nomination. Conflict exposes character. Some candidates are steady under fire, exude confidence under pressure, refuse to be rattled by setback and disappointment. These are the traits that become evident in a tight race, and the ones that separate the nominee from the rest of the field.

There will be more surprises, surges, and stunning reversals before the primary season is over. The support for once obscure candidates will soar, and that of front-runners will plummet. Revelations and recrimination will ricochet around the arena with increasing intensity. Look for the steady hand, the composed competitor, the undaunted determination of a leader. When the smoke clears, the choice will be clear. You won’t need a poll or pundit to tell you what a champion looks like.

-=-=--

Lance Thompson lives in Idaho and supports Mitt Romney for President.