Conservative Donnybrook

The Department of Justice seeks retarded lawyers. From a job announcement, now deleted from the DOJ Web site:

The Civil Rights Division encourages qualified applicants with targeted disabilities to apply. Targeted disabilities are deafness, blindness, missing extremities, partial or complete paralysis, convulsive disorder, mental retardation, mental illness, severe distortion of limbs and/or spine. Applicants who meet the qualification requirements and are able to perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation are encouraged to identify targeted disabilities in response to the questions in the Avue application system seeking that information.

Hillary really stepped in it this time.  The United States has managed to walk a fine line for decades on the issue of the Falkland Islands and Mrs. Clinton managed to mess it up in less than 2 hours.  Repairing her mistake may prove more than she can handle.

John Tabin has a nice little article on American Spectator regarding CPAC and the dearth of reasonable foreign policy discussion.  It is a short and sweet read.  So do it.

Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll. You heard me. I know it doesn’t mean anything. Except that it means even the C-packers are sick of the neocon crap.

yet again. Birch Evans “Evan” Bayh, the supposedly moderate Democratic Senator from Indiana, just announced his plan to not seek reelection, one day before his party has to collect enough signatures to put up another candidate. My speculation is that, coupled with recent speculation here and elsewhere that Hillary Clinton is going to resign over national security issues, Clinton (who announced today that Iran is “moving toward a military dictatorship”) is going to resign as SecState and run as a “national security,” “moderate” alternative to the left’s candidate (or force Obama to retire) and the “right’s” candidate, whoever that may turn out to be, thus shoring up the “centrist,” independent bloc. Bayh, one should remember, was a strong supporter of Clinton’s candidacy. He has clearly stuck a knife in the Left’s back and solidified his alignment with the Triangulatress. Mark my words, Clinton-Bayh in ‘12, and they will likely win.

Reporting to you from the heart of SNOWMAGEDDON!!!, the snowfall in DC is just now tapering off, leaving a heavy blanket of upwards of up to 20+ inches in its wake.

It’s customary to make fun of Washington for shutting down completely at the slightest dusting of snow, but I think by the time you hit two feet of accumulation, it’s pretty understandable that stuff just isn’t going to happen here. Plus, it’s Saturday.

Unfortunately for anti-government activists, the DC shutdown will probably only last through Monday and thereafter the wheels of the State will continue to turn in their depressing fashion.

Those looking for salvation from the RNC are likely to be disappointed. I can’t agree with my colleague Karl’s optimism about the recent noise being made from the bowels of RNC officialdom about withdrawing support from candidates who don’t hew closely to the 2008 Republican platform.

Of course, the Republican party has been an unmitigated disaster to conservatism in America.

Just take a look at that platform that’s supposed to be the basis for ideological cleansing. Section One: “Defending Our Nation, Supporting Our Heroes, Securing the Peace.” Translation: maintaining the aggressive, expansionist foreign policy that has been at the heart of exploding government spending, the curtailment of civil liberties under a bipartisan national security state, and the unprecedented expansion of the military-industrial complex.

Meanwhile, vague platitudes about “reducing spending” and “reforming the budget process” serve as promises to tinker with, not demolish, the corrupt fusion of the State with corporate interests that has resulted in the wholesale robbery of trillions of taxpayers’ dollars by corporate elites — under the watch of Democrats and Republicans alike.

What would the consequence be of a successful purge of non-GOP-approved candidates? For one thing, the promising candidacies of such genuine anti-government figures as Rand Paul and Peter Schiff would have been strangled in their cribs.

Unifying behind “GOP values” would spell the end of reform, not the beginning, and would represent a betrayal of the grass-roots Tea Party phenomenon, constitutionalism, and traditionalist conservatism.  It comes down to this: You can’t be anti-government and pro-Empire. The cause of liberty won’t be furthered by strengthening the RNC leadership — instead, it must be overthrown.

for everyone!

The particulars are starting to appear less thrilling than Uncle Barry’s promises at first appeared at the SOTU.
For example: the second stimulus proposal appears to be simply another TARP for smaller banks, most of which only carry around 80% debt (as compared to the Big Boys, who carry around 92%). The small banks don’t want it, and they will sit on it rather than loan it, just like the Big Boys did. Anyone out there building a new high-rise because you got a loan in the past six months? Didn’t think so. Neither will anyone be financing all new office furniture, office equipment, tools, raw materials like wire or PVC with any new loans from the new “stimulus.” Example 2: the hinted at nuclear power plant boom is apparently contingent on Republicans playing ball and voting for crap-and-tax, er, cap-and-trade. Sure, the two “could” be separated. And Uncle Barry might sprout a third arm and use it to reach across the aisle, too. Example 3: targeted tax cuts (which won’t work) attached to the dangling carrot of capital gains rate reductions. Along with those few select rate cuts are other rate hikes and permanent extensions of further entitlements for the dependent class in the form of “tax cuts” for people who never pay them to begin with (i.e., more spending under the moniker “tax cut.”) Aren’t words wonderful things, Humpty-Dumpty?

A long-time reader forwarded the following email this evening and one hopes that this is a sign that the Republicans finally get it (emphasis below is mine).

Republican and Conservative Leaders and Activists:

At its Winter Meeting last week, the Republican National Committee adopted an important and historic resolution “concerning party support for candidates.” Sponsored by Bill Crocker of Texas, the unanimously-adopted resolution calls on all Republican Party leaders “to carefully screen” all candidates and to “determine that they wholeheartedly support the core principles and positions of the Republican Party as expressed in the Platform” and urges that “no support, financial or otherwise, be given to candidates who clearly do not support the core principles and positions of the Republican Party as expressed in the Platform.” The text of the resolution can be found here:

RNC resolution concerning party support of candidates – - POLITICO.com

This is the first time that the RNC has taken steps to ensure that Republican candidates are faithful to the Republican Platform. It empowers the RNC Chairman to consider the positions of candidates on issues and to deny funding to those candidates who are clearly out of the mainstream of our Party.  As Mr Crocker said after the resolution’s adoption: “No more Scozzafavas, please. No more Specters, please. No more Chafees, please.”

State and local Republican parties, the National Republican Congressional Committee and National Republican Senatorial Committee are independent organizations and the resolution is not binding on them. The RNC, however, is calling all Republican leaders to follow the RNC lead.  After all, what each of us does effects everyone.

With the adoption of the Platform Fidelity Resolution, I withdrew from consideration the Reagan Resolution and the Accountability Resolution, since the Platform Fidelity Resolution accomplish[es] our goal of demonstrating that this party is serious about standing for our principles, so that disaffected conservatives, such as tea party members, will be comfortable working with us in defense of freedom, and gained widespread support. See RNC Passes Compromise On ‘Purity’ Resolutions | TPMDC For additional accounts of this historic action by the RNC see the Washington Times

GOP leaders adopt litmus test of values for candidates – Washington Times and the AP

GOP Adopts Platform Test For Republican Candidates : NPR

As one of the disaffected former Republicans, I hope this ushers in a new commitment to the values of limited government and traditional social values. Now let us hope that the NRCC and NRSC will follow suit and those who are subsequently elected govern according to those traditional principles. I give kudos to the RNC leadership for this resolution.

“Somewhere along the line, the White House lost its way,” said Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo.

No, Rep. Skelton, the White House did not lose its way; its way, as carefully guarded by Rahm Emanuel and the rest of the crew, was on full display during President Obama’s speech. You see, the White House ran a campaign to accomplish only a few things. Primarily, they ran to keep the powers in the Federal Reserve and globalist banking interests untouched: and yesterday’s Senate confirmation of Bernanke, along with steadfast support of Tim Geithner and his policies, accomplished that. Secondarily, they ran to keep the moneyed interests in the defense industries flush with cash and fresh battlegrounds: the ramp-up in Afghanistan and the sabre-rattling about their next war in Iran accomplished just that. Thirdly, they ran to hand off the responsibility for fomenting a leftist revolution to Democrat-controlled Congressional Houses: President Obama slapped them in the face and subsequently cajoled them into trying harder to do just that with his call “To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills.” He said, “Don’t walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. Let’s get it done. Let’s get it done.” You must understand that the President is a short-term law professor who made his bones in that bastion of honesty and good-government, Chicago politics. His king-maker was Teddy Kennedy. Need I say more? If Kennedy hadn’t put his considerable political weight behind Obama, he would be facing a tough reelection battle as the junior Senator from Illinois begging President Hillary Clinton to campaign for him when the time came. That Hillary Clinton is both meaner and perhaps slightly more in control of her temper than the loathsome John McCain is not seriously in question; what is is whether McCain would have folded up the tent and joined her ticket as the VP. But I digress.

No, Ike, the White House did not lose its way at all. They still have you to blame. They are counting on you and the caucus to come through. They have no intentions of leaving the radicalism of “health care” “reform” aside. They have no inclination to make banking and finance more “transparent.” They have no desire to end the wars. They have made that plain; besides, peace is not in their revolutionary make-up. Marxism, whether overtly Leninist or the covertly Alinskyite variety (which merely deceptively masks its nature by denying it), depends upon struggle, upheaval, tension, division, and conflict. It is only natural that they would pretend to appeal to the masses of us who clamored for an end to war. It is only natural that they are disappointing us. I point only to Robert Gates, that unctious holdover from the odious wing of the last administration, as proof. The White House has its dupes making “gaffes” which fill up news cycles (Chris Matthews’ “I forgot he was black”) and distract from their strategic retreats (“rethinking” the location and venue of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial), but they are going about their business unabated.

You’ll see, Ike. Why, the Orlando Sentinel just reported a few days ago that Obama made NASA scrap the Constellation program and the Ares rockets so as to refocus the agency’s attention on “climate change.” Guess who stand to make billions (trillions? Dare I say it in this day when superlatively large descriptors fail to come to mind? I do.) from the “climate change” scam? That’s right, Ike. All those “lobbyists” from K Street that the President “really let have it.” Uh huh. Sure. I believe he meant that about as much as I believe he meant “more nuclear power” and “drill here, drill now” and “we need tax cuts” and a “three year freeze” on spending. The President had them on speed dial to invite them to a “not-for-the-press” conference call literally the morning after purportedly taking them to task. And as for calling on Republicans to “work together with us” or whatever phraseology the Dear Leader used, he knows very well that Snowe, Graham, and McCain (the “deficit hawk,” ha ha) are already in line for “health care reform,” “immigration reform,” and “deficit reduction” (in that order, and then some). God only knows what other deals they have already lined up for a year or two down the road. The White House, contrary to the so-called “conservative” media, wasn’t surprised by Coakley’s loss. Nor was that an actual set-back. No, “there will be a bill,” as Nancy said. It will have a “public option” (I can hear it now: a “public partnership run for us by private insurance companies”) and it will force exorbitant costs onto the businesses Obama said he wants to stimulate. (A rather disquieting analogy springs to mind at that word, but it is apropos.)

Oh, Ike. What saps they took us for! Took you for! Unless, of course, you’re also doing a little sap-taking, there, Ike.

Our secretary of state apparently doesn’t find her job challenging enough, because she’s gone and decided to create a big new diplomatic headache for the United States by dishing out some combative rhetoric (and much sanctimonious lecturing) on China’s Internet policy.

Now, it’s perfectly reasonable for Clinton to protest China’s hacking of American companies’ networks, using them to spy on Chinese users’ communications, and the theft of their intellectual property. But it’s another thing altogether to invoke cold-war rhetoric in an explicit call to undermine foreign governments:

Some countries have erected electronic barriers that prevent their people from accessing portions of the world’s networks. They’ve expunged words, names, and phrases from search engine results. They have violated the privacy of citizens who engage in non-violent political speech. These actions contravene the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which tells us that all people have the right “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” With the spread of these restrictive practices, a new information curtain is descending across much of the world. And beyond this partition, viral videos and blog posts are becoming the samizdat of our day.

While it’s unclear what this speech signifies beyond escalating rhetoric, it seems that Hillary is trying to enlist American companies to protest or undermine foreign governments’ Internet policies, á la Google’s stand in China. Continue Reading »

Trijicon, maker of exception scopes for military and civilian use, has come under fire for inscriptions which appear on the company’s hardware. The inscriptions reference bible passages, often regarding Christ. The Muslim Public Affairs Council wants the inscriptions removed and no further shipments made to the U.S. military of hardware containing references to scripture. MPAC said the references “feed into the violent extremists’ narrative that the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are a ‘crusade against Islam.’”

If references to God are unacceptable on military hardware, then the same argument can be made against sending U.S. Treasury notes to Muslim nations. Shall we stop sending bills with references to God on them to Afghanistan? Iraq? Think before you complain, MPAC.

According to CNN and MSNBC’s Norah O’Donnell, respectively. Obama’s first major initiative is sunk, it would seem. With Reid and other Senate Dems on the ropes, I’ll go out on a limb and say the war is all he’s got left.

Michael Kinsley once defined a gaffe as when a politician accidentally tells the truth.

As we’ve all heard, according to Harry Reid, among Obama’s electoral advantages is that he’s “light-skinned … with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

Now, certainly, this comment sets off all sorts of PC alarm bells, but of course, it’s basically true, right? What’s more, it’s obviously not racist at all.

OK, it’s not nice to use the term “Negro” any more, fine, but give me a break, the man’s 70 years old, and it’s not exactly a racial epithet — just an old term that’s fallen out of fashion.

The “dialect”? I think we’ve all noticed Obama turn on Great Black Orator mode, even though he’s not very good at it, in contrast with his more natural Midwest Whitebread mode. But I think it’s safe to say that the more “black” your speech, the less likely average white folks are to vote for you. Now take that as an indictment of white racism or whatever, but it seems pretty inarguable to me.

Why, here’s Camille Paglia writing during the ‘08 campaign:

I have become increasingly uneasy about Obama’s efforts to sound folksy and approachable by reflexively using inner-city African-American tones and locutions, which as a native of Hawaii he acquired relatively late in his development and which are painfully wrong for the target audience of rural working-class whites that he has been trying to reach. Obama on the road and even in major interviews has been droppin’ his g’s like there’s no tomorrow.

But these ideas are forbidden! Paglia must resign! Willmoore must resign!

The most dubious part of the comment is probably the “light-skinned” part — I’m not so sure that makes such a big difference, but who knows? It’s not a crazy notion.

But the funny thing about all of this is that what Reid is basically saying is that he thinks whites are racist. Normally, the assumption of the bigotry on the part of white Americans is not only condoned, but it serves as one of the core background assumptions to the entire PC project.

Then again, these PC rituals of outrage and contrition never seem to have a close relationship with what the offender actually said. But Reid crossed some PC tripwires with his vaguely icky turns of phrase, and therefore he must prostrate himself before the sensitivity gods.

But what about double standards? Wouldn’t a Republican have suffered more for saying the same thing? Well, of course he would, but that’s life. And ultimately, conservatives do themselves no favors for playing this game.

Sure, it’s nice to get the chance to watch a big-time Democrat squirm under the rules set down by his PC brethren. It seems like Ann Coulter had great fun with this when, on Geraldo Rivera’s show, after Sharpton went on at length about what a swell guy Harry Reid is, Coulter asked, “Did he ask you to stop using your Negro dialect too?”

Well hey! That’s pretty funny, and if anyone deserves it, it’s Sharpton. But ultimately, isn’t it pretty stupid for conservatives to get into the game of jumping all over folks who broach subjects forbidden by PC fashion? This is a game that conservatives can never win, and the whole thing brings to mind a certain aphorism about getting into the mud with pigs.

The list of officially-sanctioned viewpoints and subjects for discussion grows ever-smaller. Why, these days, just opposing gay marriage can cost you your job. Conservatives will not benefit by throwing in their lot with the PC thought police. Paul Gottfried puts it best:

What the GOP is doing will have dire consequences, beyond the richly deserved fate of making the party look foolish. It will stifle the freedom to engage in honest political discussion, an activity that the attack on Reid and before that on Lott is going to make more difficult. As the “sensitivity” net widens and as unauthorized questions about race, gender, and lifestyle are put outside the limits of “sensitive” dialogue, we will suffer as an already diminished free society. While there is plenty of blame to go around for this situation, the GOP has done its part here, in its desperate hunger for minority votes. … Now the GOP has moved out in front as an advocate of leftwing thought and speech control. The campaign against Reid illustrates this.

It looks like China might have a lot more to worry about soon than the possibility of Google pulling up stakes and leaving in a snit. Conventional wisdom is that China’s fiscal and monetary stimulus program has worked — See this Dec. 11 New York Times story:

Data released by China on Friday provided fresh evidence that the nation’s economic recovery was gaining momentum, helped by government stimulus measures and lending by state-run banks over the last year.

China’s authorities were quick to prime the economy in the wake of last year’s global financial crisis, and gross domestic product is forecast to grow more than 8 percent this year — vastly more than in the United States, Europe or Japan — despite a sharp decline in exports.

This supposed success story has led various commentators to point to China as an example of effective centrally-planned economy-goosing. So you see, it isn’t Keynesianism’s fault. We just aren’t doing Keynesianism right!

But China might not be such a model of enlightened state-directed capitalism, after all. Massive government spending, aggressive monetary stimulus, turbocharged bank lending, surging asset prices, skyrocketing real estate values — it gives one a sense of deja vu, and this story doesn’t end well. The massive real estate overbuilding is particularly alarming–shades of Dubai? Heck, shades of us?

Continue Reading »

The stage is set: In November, Californians will go to the polls and either legalize and tax marijuana or keep it decriminalized. Marijuana is the number one cash crop in California (and in several other states), grossing an estimated $14 billion per year! Grapes, by comparison, gross roughly $2.6 billion annually. Conservative estimates suggest that through legalization and taxation the cost would drop, tax would be applied and the net expense would be the same for the consumer, resulting in a windfall $1 billion for Sacramento. The time is right, the money is right and the resistance is small and shrinking.

Marijuana is relatively harmless as it is non-addictive, posses no substantial health threat, impairs users much less than alcohol and like alcohol, it comes in countless varieties and strains. Simply put, there is no reason to make this plant or its growth and consumption illegal. Legalization provides income to our strapped state, dramatically reduces its availability to minors and removes it from the control of sometimes violent criminal organizations.

The chief arguments against marijuana legalization are unfounded (think Reefer Madness). Those that clamor for its continued ban largely do so out of an over-inflated sense of “moral” superiority and ignorance. However, there are others that will not support legalization. Growers, organized crime and dealers will not want their source of income jeopardized by allowing government to regulate the business. You see, regulation means control. As it is marijuana is illegal and, thus, one of the last sources of truly free-enterprise. Nevertheless, applying criminal sanctions, banning its use and overcrowding our jails are a travesty. The time has come to undue almost 100 years of bad policy.

In an attempt to quench my thirst for knowledge on the gold standard and opposition to an independent Federal Reserve, I have (on the advice of a certain New Yorker by way of Massachusetts) ordered a copy of Mr. Ron Paul’s “End the Fed.” I know there must be some reason that such a vocal minority clamors for a return to the gold standard and, in the same breath, an end to the Federal Reserve system. Yet, for all my questioning, I have yet to receive even a sophomoric answer other than “gold is independent and stable.” Of course, neither of these statements is true.

I have been inquiring for months about the vitriolic hatred for an independent Federal Reserve and the nostalgic waxing of the same persons for a return to the gold standard. I have no real position on the subject yet other than a gut reaction to endorse an independent Fed over the congressional meddling many (led by Mr. Paul) have called for. Therefore, as soon as I have received and read the book, I will post my reaction to it. In the meantime, if someone has a thought, I am more than interested to read it.

The last year of this first decade of the 21st century will bring us many challenges and, D.v., many blessings as well. Speaking for my part, I resolve to strive for constructive policy recommendations along with my typical criticisms. Conservatives face a tremendous opportunity to once again, as Buckley once said, stand athwart history yelling “Stop!” And it is clear that they must be stopped: those forces of destruction, confiscation, redistribution, secular salvation, usurpation, and tyranny. The question before us, as has been handily demonstrated in the recent past here at CD is, “what is conservatism?” How shall we then live? What methodologies will we need to adapt and resurrect to counteract these agents of “change”? Whom shall we trust to carry our standard? What, in short, is a credo by which we can measure all our rhetoric and action?

Peril abounds, as it always has. Folk wisdom tells us not to bash a bee hive with a creek rock. Doubtless, the occasional sting will occur, even with due caution in the apiary. Such stings do not imply that the caution we were exercising was inappropriate or should be jettisoned in a fury of pain and trauma. Especially when an epinephrine pen won’t work to prevent the anaphylaxis anymore.

Debt looms insanely large, and yet more and more clamoring is heard from old and new quarters. A serious audit of the books is due, and serious cutbacks are not only necessary but inevitable, regardless of how they come. Borrowing billions to send $50 billion annually in foreign “aid” is no longer feasible. We have long since shifted from a manufacturing and production economy, and thus the idea that we as a country can or should take on the burdens of other countries is as ridiculous as taking out a third mortgage on my house to pay my neighbors’ cable and electric bills. That’s one slice of a tragically large pie that has to be — finally — served.

Lastly, liberty should not be spoken of apart from attendant responsibilities, because it is derived therefrom. We are created beings, social beings, and the most basic duties we have are to the One Who created us and to those whom we are familially and then societally related. It is inside those boundaries that we are truly free from fear, from want, and from oppression.

We have our work cut out for us, friends and readers. Let us get to splitting the wood.

As I sang the first one to my daughter before bed last night, I began to wonder: What is the saddest song ever recorded?  I nominate the two below, though the first takes it for me.  What say you?

UPDATE: I just remembered this one….

Christmas marks a momentous occasion in the history of Man’s salvation. With the coming of Our Lord, those who walk in the Spirit with Christ are restored to God’s family. God so loved the world that He gave his only Son that we could be saved. St. Paul teaches that God wishes to adopt us into his own family as brothers, sisters, and heirs of Christ (Rom 8:14-17). We as human beings are, of course, imbued with inherent dignity by our creation in the likeness and image of God. But, how much more does it increase our dignity to be adopted heirs to Christ’s throne? Each person possesses a claim on Christ’s Chair when he professes his faith in Christ and partakes of His flesh and blood. As adopted sons and daughters of God, each person’s intrinsic worth is increased over his former state, albeit immeasurably short of Christ’s Divine Sonship.

Of course, concomitant with God’s overwhelming beneficence comes a reciprocal duty to recognize the import of such a gift. Our response to such an astounding gift can be no less than full acceptance and spreading of that Good News to anyone who will listen. If God makes the faithful more worthy through his Divine Condescension, we can do nothing short of respecting that quality in others. We do this by imitating Christ, the supreme example, and treating others with the respect that their station as co-heirs with Christ rightly entitles them. Our personal interactions, our familial interactions, our public interactions, and even our national interactions should be guided by that example.

A child was born in a manger a little over 2000 years ago to a family of humble means. And the world was changed. With that child came hope for every man, woman and child. With that birth, we were freed from the slavery to sin and given a great promise that we might share in Christ’s heritage. Rejoice and be glad for this is the day the Lord has made. And, in this day, we are to be called to God’s family through our Redeemer.

Merry Christmas to one and all.

In less than one year Californians will go to the polls to elect a new governor. Their two main choices will be Jerry Brown for the Democrats and one of three Republicans from the San Francisco Bay area. No matter if it is Meg Whitman, Tom Campbell or Steve Poizner that gets the nod from the GOP, Jerry Brown will win this election. Its not that Brown is a strong candidate or that California is a blue state, the problem is that all three of these bay area Republicans are pro-choice. Therefore the base that simply must turn out in droves for a Republican to win will stay home, vote for a third party candidate and otherwise hand Brown victory.

I am one of these republicans. My conscience and my morals prevent me from voting for any candidate that advocates (or at least is ambivalent to) the killing of innocent children. Whitman has an impressive business record. Poizner is a strong fiscal conservative. Campbell has tough talk for Sacramento. All three have a faulty moral compass. There will be some who argue that I should vote for one of these three republicans because Brown is also pro-choice and a huge fiscal liberal to boot. By voting for one of the three Republicans, the argument will go, we can at least elect a fiscal conservative. Besides, they will say, even a pro-life Republican will be powerless to change the culture of death in California. What this argument is so subtly saying is “toe the line, vote for the member of your party for there is no hope.” I refuse to vote for someone either so morally unaware (at best) that they are pro-choice or they are so afraid of or indoctrinated by Bay area liberals that they willfully turn away from defending the lives of the most vulnerable.

This is a re-occurring theme for the GOP: Candidates that hold positions that appeal to “moderates” ( I hate that term) but drive away the republican base. The California election will play out first but even for the 2012 presidential election we will most likely see a rather flimsy candidate that many conservative voters simply will not turn out for, one that independents will not vote for and one that liberals will salivate over to run against. But there is still hope. Indeed, there is still time for another conservative and pro-life candidate to emerge, possibly from Southern California. Darrell Issa looked like a shoe-in but then endorsed Whitman. Peter Foy of Ventura County all but announced but knew he did not have the name recognition needed to even get the nomination. Still, there maybe potential candidates out there. We need a fiscal conservative with a backbone and a good set of morals. We need someone who has name recognition and is not a life long politician. We need someone that endorses limited government, fiscal restraint, is socially libertarian on most issues and stands up for those that have no say in this world, like the unborn. Does anyone have any viable suggestions? I didn’t think so.

But alas, this is the same problem that plagued Republicans in 2008 and it’s the same issue we will see when 2012 come around. Simply put, there seems to be a dearth of good fiscal conservative Republicans that are also pro-life and want less government. It seems we are forced to consider lackluster republican candidates each and every election. The result this time will be the return of Jerry Brown, a socialist liberal that has spent a lifetime damaging our state. And Republicans are directly responsible for his all but assured victory. C’est la vie in CA.