Chicago Republicans

Does history repeat itself when it comes to the economy? Stephen W. Mack, certified financial planner, will discuss the economy, specifically the investment markets, the deficit, and how they will affect one’s personal finances, at 7 p.m., Wednesday, April 21 at Evanston Public Library, 1703 Orrington Ave., Evanston. The presentation is free and open to the public, and is being held in conjunction with “Money Smart Week,” (April 17-24.)

In his presentation, “The Four Most Dangerous Words: This Time Is Different,” Mack will speak on the U.S. economy, drawing comparisons to historic periods. He will discuss how the economy’s history foretells the future. His talk is co-sponsored by The Republican Club of Evanston and Evanston Public Library.

The death of Senator Edward Kennedy, while not unexpected, has rocked the political landscape and prompted vigorous discussion on the evaluation of his life's achievements. The left has urged immediate passage of health care reform in his honor; while the right has vociferously argued against his posthumous power grab in the form changing (yet again) the rules for filling senate vacancies in Massachusetts. He has been both lauded and criticized from both sides of the aisle since passing; so what is the real legacy of Senator Ted Kennedy?

Kennedy's death signals the end of an era in American politics; the end of the towering legislative partisan, and the beginning of the all-coveted "post-partisan era." But the American people must understand what "post-partisanship" really looks like. It is not unlike the popular explanation of post-Watergate journalism; specifically, that present-day journalism students enter the field to "change the world," not report the news. The same can be said of the modern political candidate. This might sound great, but it is not. Kennedy will be missed, not because of his ideology, but because he was the last of the old-style politicians.

We are continuously reminded that universal health care was the cause of his life, but in nearly fifty years in the Senate, he never achieved this goal. That's because it was never really the cause of his life. Like so many before him, the cause of Ted Kennedy's life was...Ted Kennedy. He had the goals of a true politician, first came survival, then came power; everything else was icing.

These are the characteristics Americans hate the most in politicians: selfishness and ambition. But these are the characteristics that make our system work. If you were so inclined to read Federalist 51, you might notice James Madison's assertion that ambition is meant to counteract ambition. That is to say, the Constitution, our political system, is at its best when all the players act in their own self-interest. Our government is intended to harness that self-interest in a way that benefits our nation as a whole.

When politicians act with expediency, they act in our best interest. When Senators cast votes that make re-election easier, they are acting in our best interest. But when politicians are replaced by ideologues, those interests are no longer defined by the voters, they forced on us by our leaders. This is the situation in which we currently find ourselves. Senate Democrats are so convinced that health care "reform" is necessary, that they are willing to act counter to their own political survival (as the polls now tell us) in order to impose a false "public interest" on an unwilling citizenry. The old politician seeks out the moment when the voters say, "Take, take!" (think early FDR), but the new ideologue acts when his internal compass says, "I'm right!" It's the opportunist versus the idealist. It may seem immoral or counter-intuitive, but our government is designed to be most under control when it is run by opportunists.

What makes the rise of the ideologue so dangerous to representative democracy is that his insistent righteousness stands directly counter to the kind of understanding of power and survival that is necessary in government. In other words, at the end of the day, when the doors were shut, Senator Kennedy could shake hands with Bob Dole, Phil Graham, or John Tower; somehow, I doubt that Harry Reid and John Cornyn are comfortable shaking hands. Welcome to the post-partisan era.

Recently, ChicagoGOP.com has opened the front page blog to Illinois gubernatorial candidates in the Republican primary who wish to participate in an open discussion with Chicago Republicans. We maintain a strict set of guidelines with the regards to the posts of any candidate or campaign.

Aside from allowing limited campaign communications, the front page is reserved primarily for new, original content that is generated by a regular cast of contributors. Because we prefer to focus on original content, we do not rebroadcast campaign press releases, and thus do not maintain a "blacklist."

Some supporters of Andy Martin have posted in "The Snakepit," which is noticeably less governed than the front page, and is intended for this type of heated debate amongst passionate partisans. Mr. Martin has not requested a platform on ChicagoGOP.com, and like most non-gubernatorial candidates, he not been offered one. This is not a personal exclusion, but a general policy. 

That being said, it is my firm belief, that if Mr. Martin were to request a platform at ChicagoGOP.com, such a request would and should be met with the most critical of assessments. My personal opinion is that such a request should be denied. Here is why:

Since 1978, Andy Martin (also Anthony Robert Martin-Trigona) has run for office at least 15 times. He has run as a Democrat, as a Republican, and as an Independent. He has run in Illinois, in Connecticut, and in Florida.

In fact, in 2004, he was removed from the ballot in the Illinois Senate race, so he ran for Senate in Florida. When he ran for Congress in Connecticut in 1986, he named his congressional campaign committee "The Anthony R. Martin-Trigona Congressional Campaign to Exterminate Jew Power in America."

He filed for bankruptcy in 1983 and resorted to calling a federal judge, "a crooked, slimy Jew, who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race." Not to mention his expression of sympathy for the perpetrators of the Holocaust, "I am able to understand how the Holocaust took place, and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did."

He has been repeatedly sanctioned by federal courts for filing largely meritless legal actions, including one against the Chicago Tribune that asserted that he was left out of a gubernatorial primary poll. He was not left out of the poll, but he did receive less than 1% of of support.

Most recently, Mr. Martin has made the news for his vendetta against President Barack Obama. First he asserted that Obama is a practicing Muslim, but eventually backed off of this position. He claims on his own website to be the founder of the "birther" movement and decries any person who claims otherwise. He is proud to lead the tin-foil army. He also claims that Barack Obama's true father is alleged communist journalist Frank Marshall Davis.

So far, I have mentioned those things that make Mr. Martin a terrible candidate, and an even worse human being, but perhaps not enough to warrant the blacklist. There is more.

In 1996, while Martin was running for State Senate in Florida, he was convicted of criminal mischief for damaging a video camera belonging to a local television station. He was sentenced to a year in prison, and subsequently sentenced to an additional seven years for contempt of court after making personal attacks against the judge in the case. By some strange mistake, he was let out of jail after serving only one month. As of his US Senate run in 2008, there was still an outstanding warrant for his arrest in West Palm Beach. Unless the situation has changed, he owes them 16 months in jail.

To make things more interesting, in 1973, the Illinois Supreme Court denied him license to practice law in Illinois saying that he lacked fitness to be an attorney. More specifically, a psychiatric evaluation stated that he suffered from a "moderately severe character defect manifested by well-documented ideation with a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character." Such a case of paranoia could easily explain the inordinate amount of conspiracy theorizing and frivolous lawsuits.

Here is the rub, according to the state of Florida, Andy Martin belongs in jail; according to the state of Illinois, he might belong in a psychiatric facility. This is a seriously disturbed man who is in need of some serious help. His outlandish actions and remarks are not representative of any rational thought process, and he cannot be relied upon to act or speak in a responsible manner. Regardless of his legal or mental standing, he is entitled to his First Amendment rights, but GOPUSA, the Illinois Republican Party, the Chicago Republican Party, and ChicagoGOP.com have no obligation to provide him with a platform from which to exercise that right. Furthermore, based on both the merits and the circumstances, it would be strategically, ethically, and morally irresponsible for any affiliate of the Republican Party to associate with Mr. Martin or allow him to associate with it.

To wait for State Central Committe approval is cowardly. Leadership begins by taking control of the party. If state leadership unwilling to do so, they are not leaders at all.

Resources regarding Andy Martin can be found here.

Yesterday, the news stations were nothing but wall-to-wall coverage of national hero former-President Bill Clinton on a mission to rescue two American journalists in North Korea. Aparently the two journalists were covering North Korea while working for Al Gore's television network, "Current TV." In the course of their coverage they were captured, "tried," and sentenced to twelve years hard labor. They were held by the Norks for about five months before Clinton swooped in from the heavens.

 

No matter how hard the White House tries to convince us that this was a "private mission," it most certainly was not. Sure, President Clinton is no longer a government official, but he is a former President and the husband of the Secretary of State. Not to mention he flew in an unmarked white plane not unlike the ones the CIA flies or that the two journalists work for a former Vice President. So what makes these two ladies so damn important? Is it only because they work for a former Veep, or were they on some secret mission taking notes on how to be a better communist?

 

The reporter on NBC even mentioned that they were staying at the guest house of Kim-Jung Il,;a guest house that this particular reported has apparently also stayed in. She says that it is quite accomadating, but that the ladies must have missed their families. So were they prisoners or not? Was this even a rescue, or just a giant photo-op? 

 

Now, assuming the story is true, I am certainly happy to see these two ladies return home safely and circumvent twelve years of hard labor. But at this very moment there are many more Americans being held against their will in foreign countries, while the ex-President Brigaide remains noticeabley inactive. So why now, and why these two journalista? But more importantly, what did we have to give North Korea to get them back?

 

Maybe Kim Jung Il is just a big Clinton fan. He said, "Let me meet that chubby-chasin' ex-President of yours and I'll let two skinny ones go." Or maybe Bill was already in the neighborhood selling more secrets to China and figured North Korea was an easy enough detour. But whatever we gave them, I am certain that the Iranian government is wondering why the United States is so eager to negotiate with the North Koreans, who already have nukes, but so unwilling to deal with them. Sure enough, Iran practically begged Clinton to fly to Tehran to rescue the three American journalists in their custody. He declined.

 

Again, I am happy these two ladies are safe, but I think we are setting a dangerous precedent by sending a former President to rescue two journalists in an enemy country who understood (or should have) the risks involved when they took the assignment. This is, and should be, the job of the United States Consulate, not the President, current or former.

Unless you live under a rock, you've probably heard all this fuss about Harvard professor Skip Gates and Cambridge Police Sargeant James Crowley. In a nutshell, Prof. Gates, who just returned from China, could not get his front door open, so his driver helped him dislodge the locked door. A neighbor saw the two men, who are both black, and reported the incident as a burglary. Sgt. Crowley arrived shortley and accused Gates of breaking and entering. The two argued as Gates sought to prove that it was his house. In the end, Sgt. Crowley arrested Gates in the manner that so many police officers do when suspects act rudely or without regard for authority.

Sgt. Crowley was wrong to arrest Gates, but the racial firestorm that has resulted, is preposterous. Crowley profiled Prof. Gates only to the extent that he did, in fact, meet the profile. If Gates were white, the neighboor would have reported a pair of white men, and Crowley would have profiled Gates in the exact same manner.

Sine the incident, Prof. Gates has said that he is certain that Sgt. Crowley had a mental narrative in which two black thugs had burgled the house of an old, rich, white man, and when reality deviated from this narrative, Crowley panicked and acted in accordance to his inherently racist beliefs. But the only thing this tells us is that Prof. Gates had a mental narrative about a racist white cop, and when reality seemed to confirm this, he had no reason to consider an alternate explanation.

It remains unclear to me why the hell any of us should care about a local police matter in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but the President does, so I guess that's enough. In fact, the President has invited the two men to "have a beer" at the White House, and Prof. Gates is apparently looking forward to this "teaching moment" with Sgt. Crowley. Surely this means that Crowley will receive a good talkin' to about how racist he is, but more to the point; President Obama has ended racism, and he did with beer because he's just a regular guy like you and me. Crisis averted.

Incidentally, if you like free beer, have never been to the White House, and don't mind being lectured about how racist you are, here's the link to Harvard's Arab and Muslim Studies faculty page . I'm not suggesting or condoning that you accost one of these individuals, only that it could score you a free beer.

There are plenty of reasons to oppose Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, but there are more reasons to let the nomination hearings pass without a showdown.

 

Many Republicans would like revenge for the treatment of Bush nominees by Congressional Democrats, but there are several key differences. First and foremost, the Democrats had the votes to threaten  filibuster. Today, Republicans do not have the votes to do anything. That is to say (barring some unforeseen scandal), no matter how well they grill Sotomayor, they have exactly zero ability to actually keep her from getting nominated.

 

 Still, I know what your thinking, "That doesn't mean we should sacrifice our principles!"

 

 Look at it this way, Americans are growing weary of this unsuccessful big spending. They are beginning to see Cap & Trade for the tax increase that it is, and national health care just looks like a giant price tag now. This is progress for Republicans on debates that are happening right now. We cannot afford to take our focus off of the issues we can win.  As soon as Congressional Republicans challenge the Sotomayor nomination, they will be called racist and sexist, and the media will eat it up. Bad press for Republicans  will hurt and prevent us from making realistic strides on more pressing issues. We cannot afford to waste any political capital on a fight that we cannot win.

 

 Republicans should be particularly weary of using Frank Ricci in this process.  Mr. Ricci is a litigant against whom judge Sotomayor ruled in a case involving the promotion of fire fighters. Mr. Ricci offers no relevant expertise, but may be called by Republicans to testify against Sotomayor simply because he is a sympathetic figure. This is a huge mistake. Not only will it intensify claims of racism and sexism, it will open the floodgates to this sort of theatrics in the future. And one thing is for sure, when the Democrats parade litigants against Republicans nominees, they will be much better at it. They always are. 

Normally, I do not read the Red Eye because it tends to be a complete waste of time; yesterday was no different, but the cover story was so appalling that I could not help but read it. The cover reads, "They're not swingers, they're polyamorists- and they're in a different kind of relationship," and is accompanied by a picture of a woman with a man leaning on either shoulder. Somewhere buried in the story there is a hint of actual reporting, but for the most part it reads more like a press release than a news story, taking the time to describe the ins and outs of "polyamorism," including various terms with which us old-fashioned folk may be unfamiliar.

The story revolves around a woman, her husband, and her boyfriend. The husband, Joseph, is aware and perfectly content that his wife, Patricia, has another boyfriend, Amul. This is apparently called a "vee" because Patricia is in two committed relationships, but the two men are not involved intimately; they are just friends. Somehow, simply because there are "no secrets," this is not cheating. But it gets better. While Amul is the "secondary partner," he is constantly dating to find his own "primary partner." Similarly, Patricia has a tertiary partner who is also engaged to be married. There's no mention of Joseph (the husband) having other partners; apparently the only way he could get a wife was to let her cheat on him.

The story mentions a few other polyamorists and makes general statements about how they are sometimes kicked out of other social groups or lose custody of their children as a result of this practice. We are meant to feel sorry for them. That's the point of the story. These are just regular people in a "different kind of relationship" we are told. We used to call this type of relationship, being single, but now it's a whole new lifestyle that progressives want to push on us and force us to accept as the norm. It's the monogamists that are abnormal.

But the writers so concerned with convincing us that we should accept polyamory, that they overlook fundamental questions. What if the boyfriend impregnates Patricia? What if the husband does? Who will raise these children, and where will the children live? Does the boyfriend have custodial rights or responsibilities?

These people are a perfect example of the modern progressive: they are completely selfish. They want to be married, but they want to have boyfriends and girlfriends too. They don't worry about kids because they will simply "choose" to abort. It's the exact same mindset that makes them entitled to "free" health care and a government provided pension plan.

As San Francisco Mayor Newsome might say, "Get used to it," and that's what the writers are trying to say to us. They took a story that belongs on Jerry Springer, and made it a human interest story in a widely circuated newspaper in a large city. Without even having to convince you, they've made it mainstream. Now get over it, you bigot.

While it is certainly hard to find reason to celebrate the electoral victory of a hateful nutjob like Mahmoud Ahmdinejad, there is somewhat of a silver lining to his reelection.  In actuality, the practical result of the election means next to nothing because the ability of Iran's elected President to actually set policy is quite limited. The Iranian constitution establishes a non-elected Council of Guardians to ensure that elected officials act in accordance with Sharia, and recognizes Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as the Supreme Leader. No country with an unelected "Supreme Leader" can truly be considered a democracy.

As a figurehead, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does an excellent job of articulating the radical views of a despotic regime. His frequent fits of holocaust denying and map-wiping stand on their own merits as reasons to deny Iran any amount of credibility. His opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is considered a "reformist," but dangerously so.

Mousavi (sometimes transliterated Moussavi), is only reformist inasmuch as he falls short of Ahmadinejad's level of outrageousness. And such a "victory" would have ignored the structural impotence of Iran's presidency. That is to say, even a true reform president is unlikely to overcome the tyrannical wrath of the Supreme Leader. However, the elections of an even slightly moderate candidate could indicate the changing attitudes of the Iranian electorate willing to cultivate an organic revolution, but not even that occurred yesterday.

Still, for the time being, the silver lining is thus: A Mousavi victory would have put a softer face on deplorable tyrrany and fooled much of the western world into believing that we had successfully appeased a rogue government into moderation. As it is, the maniacal face of Ahmadinejad, on top of Khomenei's dictatorship, ensures vigilance and deters complacency on the part of America and its allies.

For months now, there has been a power vacuum in the national GOP, one that we created when we nominated that septuagenerian moderate to headline our ticket. McCain has successfully resumed his senatorial duty in a manner suggesting that he never belonged anywhere else, and as much as we enjoyed Dick Cheney defending his administration, he too is old news. But replacing them with funky fresh Michael Steele just turned into an exercise in damage contol. Enter Rush Limbaugh, who never claimed to be the GOP leader, but Obama and, by extension, the media decided to parade him around as the de facto GOP standard bearer knowing that most non-listeners (of all political persuasions) find him abrasive and off-puting.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin has faded into obscurity, Bobby Jindal failed on the big stage, and Mitt Romney is holding fundraisers but avoiding leadership responsibility. So who is left pulling the strings and leading from the shadows?

The never-quite-retired Newt Gingrich.

Most remember him as the master-mind of the 1994 Republican takeover of congress, but conveniently forget his role in our 1996 and 1998 losses, and the eventual collapse in 2006. Before we turn back to Newt for the next takeover or *gasp* Presidential nomination, consider just what Newt has really done for the party over the years.   First, there is the spectacular divorce from his first wife, Jackie, who had been his high school geometry teacher. She was still in the hospital recovering from surgery to treat uterine cancer when he filed for divorce, but that was years before he would become Speaker of the House. 
 
Somehow, Newt overcame this bit of hypocrisy when he launched the '94 takeover on "family values." In spite of the family values mantra, he was inexplicably silent during the Lewinsky Affair, and the impeachment of President Clinton. This was the perfect opportunity for the family values platform to gain more ground, but the Republicans fielded a pair of unfaithful candidates in 1996 and lost Congressional seats in 1998 when they failed to attack Clinton on his immorality. Then, to further the confusion, Newt resigned from Congress with no explanation. Of course, it didn't take long to find out why. What followed was a nasty divorce from his second wife, Marianne, who he had been cheating on with Congressional staffer (and current wife) Callista Bisek. This set the stage for the embarrassing string of resignations and sex sandals that riddled the GOP until the party simply collapsed in 2006.
 
So the next time Newt goes on your favorite cable show (or GOP fundraiser, like the one last night) and proves his brilliance (he is brilliant) and claims to have all the answers, just remember all that he done for the GOP. He could have run the '94 campaign on generic conservative principles, but he did it on family values; then he disgraced himself, his country, and his party in manner that should be expected of a man who leaves his wife in a hospital. He might promise the moon, and he might even deliver it, but he is not the answer to the GOP's woes. He is the reason for them.

President Obama has nominated Congressman John McHugh to be the new Secretary of the Army; he will be the latest Republican addition to President Obama's "team of rivals." Rep. McHugh is the senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committe and has expressed vocal opposition to cuts in missle defense and the closing on Gitmo. No doubt, this appointment will be praised as another example of Obama's ability to reach across the aisle and listen to those with whom he disagrees.

Add this to the nominations of Republican congressman, Ray LaHood, for transportation secretary and GOP governor Jon Huntsman of Utah and you can just hear the chorus of "Kumbayah." Then consider the retainment of Defense Secretary Bob Gates, and you end up with an obvious play by the President to show security-minded voters that he can be just as serious about national defense as Republicans and will do so with the help of Republicans.

"Keeping America safe means keeping the armed forces strong." That's what Obama said at a White House news conference, citing his dedication to increasing the size of the army and modernizing their equipment. Congressman McHugh has been a staunch supporter of the military during his time in Washington, and his district is home to the 10th Mouain Division, which the President says is the most deployed division in the nation. We'll take his word on that one.

But it turns out that McHugh's district has even more significance than an active military unit; it was also the cite of an Obama electoral victory in 2008. So, not only will Rep. McHugh be joining a Democratic administration where he will be ignored, cast aside,a nd eventually blamed by Republicans for standing idly by while Obama & Co. gut the military, but he will also be handing the Democrats an enourmous opportunity to pick up another congressional seat through special election. Of course, such gamesmanship should be expected of a man whose own meteoric political rise can be attributed to eliminating competition from the ballot.

The city of Chicago should be proud.

But to point out the enormous incongruity between the President's word and his actions or the fact that his call for "bipartisanship and pragmatism" is nothing more than elaborate pageantry would be too obvious and tired. These are things we knew in January when he was inagurated, in November when he was elected, and even last July when he was nominated. Even lamenting the the non-existence of a watchdog press or an organized oppositional party has become increasingly exhausting. The Republicans could use a real leader right about now; maybe it's Newt, maybe it's Mitt, maybe it's somebody else. But until that person emerges, it is the responsibility of Republicans like Congressman McHugh to refuse to be used as a means to create behemoth.

The California Supreme Court, today, reaffirmed the voters' rights to amend their constitution. In a 6-1 decision, the court ruled that all that gay marriages conducted prior to the passage of Prop. 8 would remain legal, but that the proposition legally bans gay marriage in the state for the forseeable future.

This is the right decision for obvious reasons. Criminalizing existing marriage would constitute an Ex Post Facto law, but a constitutional cannot be ruled unconstitutional. The California Supreme Court is the very same that ruled the previous statutory ban in violation of the state constitution. Voters responded accordingly by voting the ban into the constitution, itself, thereby preventing a valid constitutional challenge.

Regardless of your stance on gay marriage, the decision is nearly impossible to argue with. However, some conservatives will be upset that the court suggested an equivilent to marriage with a different name (civil unions) as a possible middle ground. Those opposing the ban, essentially argue that California's amendment process is simply too easy. But that is an entirely different case to be tried at a different date. Today, the court stated that voters have a right, through referendum, to amend their constitution; the Supreme Court cannot overrule that.

This case eatablishes very clear guidelines for those who oppose gay marriage: A statutory ban can be overruled in court; a constitutional one cannot. There are only two ways to get around a constitutional amendment (state or federal):

 1. Repeal it.
 2. A slow, continuous, and unchallenged rollback through ignorance and reinterpretation.

The first is unlikely to happen anytime soon; although gay rights activists have already begun to try. This would require an immediate adverse effect on a majority of those who previously supported the ban. It's hard to imagine the economic downturn effecting this issue the way it did prohibition. The second is more likely, but will, obviously, take some time. A gradual introduction of civil union (as the court suggests) and other provisions that fall short of calling it "marriage" could eventually lead to a desinsitivity on the matter, thus increasing the liklihood that gay marriage will eventually become legal in any form. Evidence of this exists in a number of places, not the least of which is the gradual disregard for tenth amendment rights afforded the states.

It would behoove opponents of gay marriage to understand the parallels here to the abortion debate, and understand the dynamics of both sides. Social conservatives see a slippery slope when it comes gay marriage, and understand that approving civil unions could make legal gay marriage an eventuality. Similarly, it is important to understand that intermediate solutions on the issue of abortion can create a similar slope, but in favor of conservatives. That is to say, that by gaining support for late-term bans, parental notification, and conscience laws, conservatives can begin to form a plurality of voters who begin to see aborition as an issue concerned more with life than with "choice."

Democrats have been very effective at ridiculing the conservative "slippery slope" argument on gay marriage, and equally effective at opposing even the most reasonable measures (e.g. parental notification) that might undercut their eventual goal, abortion on-demand.

Today, we see a rare defeat for social liberals, and it resulted from an all-or-nothing approach usually reserved for Republican defeat. Social conservatives should take this opportunity understand that social change cannot be made or unmande in large doses, but should be persued through the gradual manipulation of public opinion.

Five months ago the city of Chicago began the process of privatizing the city's parking meters. Since then, they have been the object of ire for many Chicagoans, even making an appearance on the front page of the Red Eye, headlined: "FAIL."  

Now the Alderman are getting in on the action, grilling officials from Chicago Parking Meters, LLC, demanding answers, and requesting legal action. The claim is that Chicago Parking Meters failed to keep the city informed of malfunctions and roll out problems that may have resulted in overcharging for parking. Now, the city wants to rescind the deal that they so hastily agreed to when it promised to fix the giant hole in their budget. This isn't about rising parking costs or privatization. The city finds itself in exactly the same spot as Todd Stroger at Cook County. They passed a massive tax hike (or parking rate hike) because it promised to ease the problems with a revolving budget shortfall. As it turns out, people don't like higher taxes or sky-high parking rates. Now, after months of complaints from those pesky folks who elect the Aldermen and County Commissioners, both bodies have decided that maybe those big "revenue generators" weren't the best ideas.  

Ald. Leslie Hairston (5th) says that motorists are being "gypped," but gypped by who exactly? When Chicago Parking Meters offered the city over a billion dollars to take over the city's parking meters, Mayor Daley gave the City Council a whole two days to consider the measure, and they decided that the prospect of patching the budget was more important than worrying about the details. So when Ald. Flores and Hairston blame a private company for "gypping" Chicagoans out of their money, it's really the City Council and, ultimately, Mayor Daley who are robbing ordinary citizens.  

While the city would love to take legal action against Chicago Parking Meters and declare another victory in the struggle between big government and free enterprise, this entire controversy overlooks the simple fact that the city has been more than complicit in this attempt to scam motorists out of their money. 

In some areas, the old city meters have not yet been removed, even though new ones have been installed. When this happens, the old meters often have trash bags on them to signify that they are not in service. But if the bag is not present, the old meter still takes coins and displays time. The attendants who are paid by the parking company (not the city) to help motorist use the new meters are specifically instructed not to correct those who use the old meters by mistake. So, if a motorist has trouble with the new machine, an attendant will help, but if the motorist sees an old meter and immediately pays it out of habit, the attendant is instructed not to inform that person to pay the correct meter. So, when and if those old meters are ever removed or collected, the city will get the money, and when those drivers are ticketed for not paying the correct meter, the city will collect that money. The company owning the new meters has every reason to have its attendants ensure that motorists are using the new meters, that's how they make money. Even if Chicago Parking Meters makes a cut from parking violations, this looks a lot  like an under-the-table deal to make the city a little extra cash.

So when the Law Department decides to investigate this fiasco, they might want to to start at City Hall.

With the current dominance of the Democratic Party nationally, and the ongoing soul-searching by the GOP, it should come as no surprise that a number of conservatives are feeling increasingly alienated, especially considering the fiscal liberality of the past eight years. This phenomenon has strengthened libertarians and other minimalist conservative groups by reinforcing their principles and, more importantly, providing an influx of new members.

The most prominent example came at the Tax Day Tea Parties, which were organized by groups like Smart Girl Politics and Top Conservative on Twitter, and they were heavily attended by members of other conservative groups like Americans for Prosperity and Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty. The organizers and many of the demonstrators made a conscious effort to distance themselves from the Republican Party (much to the chagrin of CNN). But while I understand the aversion to Republicans in light of recent years, I have personally found myself in a number of uncomfortable, sometimes hostile, situations with these independent conservatives. For example, at the Tea Party here in Chicago, I was approached by a group of protesters who, noticing my conspicuous association with the Chicago GOP, decided to grill me on my conservative credentials. They demanded to know if I had also opposed the reckless spending when it was at the hands of "my President" and "my congress." I actually had opposed spend happy Republicans, and I told them; so they went on by citing a number of obscure corporate welfare programs and bills trying to get me to slip up or betray conservatism somehow. So I simply told them that I do not know or care about these programs and was not interested in playing their game of "gotcha."

Perhaps they were acutely aware of the irony of the situation, and that was their intention. Just think, a group of free market conservatives applying some kind of standard (a litmus test, perhaps?) to my views in the same manner that social conservatives are constantly accused of doing. My instincts, however, tell me that they are simply hypocrites.

Still, it's not the double standard or the litmus test that bothers me; it's the quibbling over when I joined the cause. They want to know if I opposed the Bush spending or if I'm just a party hack. I would like to suggest to them (for their own good) that it makes no difference. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the goal of these independent conservatives is to shrink government and lower taxes. I happen to share this goal. So what difference does it make if I felt this way two years ago when it was President Bush, or if I'm just doing what Rush Limbaugh tell me to?

This is where the ideological purity of an idealist makes him a poor strategist.

Imagine if the European Allies refused American intervention in WWII simply because they resented our absence prior to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It would have been the biggest military mistake of the twentieth century. So, the Republicans have been absent from the small government table for at least eight years, but they are ready to join the cause. Denying them a seat would be a monumental mistake. The Republican Party brings millions of members and dollars to a shared cause; if independent conservatives don't want the help, the GOP can just as easily go somewhere else.

It isn't simply ideological purity, however, that gives pause to the unaffiliated conservative; they have read the history books and they can see the writing on the wall. To this point in history, there has been one fate for third-party and single-issue groups: they have been swallowed up by the nearest, largest entity around. In this case, that would be the Republican Party. Other small government proponents know quite well that the moment they offer the GOP a seat at the table, it becomes a GOP-led movement. Bye-bye Libertarians, bye-bye Campaign for Liberty. It is not out of spite or ill-will towards these groups that I say this; it is simply the truth. In order triumph, they will have to allow the Republican establishment in on the game, and that means, inevitably, relinquishing ownership of the small government banner

Before the defection of Arlen Specter completely exits the news cycle, it's worth one more look at what it means for the Republican Party. In a strictly strategical sense, it could spell big trouble. With the shenanigans in Minnesota handing a Senate seat to Al Franken, the Democrats will soon have a filibuster-proof majority; however, Senator Specter claims that he will remain as independent as ever. If true, this could be the only salvation for the GOP in the senate, but how true can it be?

 For those who do not know, Arlen Specter was a Democrat before he was a Republican - before he was a Democrat. He is a political animal to boot, and he just joined a new fraternity that may initiate him by testing his allegiance. He did not want to have his career judged by a Republican primary electorate, but he may find that the Democratic primary electorate is no more forgiving of his "independent" streak if they perceive an inherent electoral advantage in Pennsylvania come election season.

But for the GOP, Specter's defection has led to a "how conservative?" debate between those who say "good riddance" and those who say "look what you've done." Surely, the Republican Party could use some soul searching, but the conversation should not revolve around Arlen Specter. For all his whining about how much more conservative the GOP has gotten since Ronald Reagan, Specter's decision to leave had nothing to do with ideology, and everything to do with his desire to keep his job.

In fact, the "how conservative?" debate is one that the Republicans should avoid like the plague; it's a question that allows our political enemies to frame the debate. If you ask, "are we too conservative?" Every possible answer hurts the Republican Party. What you should ask is, "Are we a party of issues, or a party of principles?"

Take a look at FDR's coalition of Southern Democrats and New York Socialists; they had little or nothing in common, except they all believed that the New Deal would solve all of America's economic woes. We must be able to rally around a real commitment to smaller, better government, and unified opposition of the new budget and any attempt at so-called stimulus.

Specific issue positions are for candidates during election season, but a Republican Party should be based on general principles like smaller and less intrusive government, fiscal restraint and responsibility, strong defense, a natural respect of tradition, and the elimination of obvious and rampant corruption. We should welcome any self-identified Republican dedicated to a more limited government and a stronger nation, regardless of any litmus test.

But please understand. This has nothing to do with Arlen.

President Barack Obama made a number of promises during his campaign, and there was one I remember catching my ear. In fact, I almost believed he would actually do it, but only because it would be so easy to do. I am referring to his promise to post all non-emergency bills for review and comment on WhiteHouse.gov for five days prior to signing said legislation. This is one of those transparency gimicks that candidates like to throw out during campaigns because they sound so democratic; still, it's not a terrible idea.

Once you weed out the over-zealous lawyers and want-to-be legislators, there could be a real review process. There is a chance that President Obama may have honestly liked this idea, but there is little doubt that the Nancy Pelosis and Harry Reids of this world would oppose it. Just imagine a Pelosi written bill publicly scrutinized line by line by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh for five days between conference and signing. Imagine the embarrassment of earmark recipients on both sides of the aisle and the pressure that ordinary citizens could put on the President to sign or not sign a bill as it is written.

 

And even though it would produce a great deal of dog and pony show activity, it could have silenced the critics of AIG or prevented the whole disaster to begin with. Maybe somebody would have noticed the supposed error, maybe a lawyer, a former legislator, or any ordinary citizen. Or maybe it would have gone unnoticed, and there would be even more of us to share the blame.

 Back to reality.

This is all just another unfulfilled promise for the President, who nine days after inaguration signed  legislation without first posting it for five days. Since then, he has signed ten more bills into law without public scrutiny. Only once has a bill been posted for five days, but it was posted after passing Congress, not after being presented to the President (that means it wasnt the final version). Of course, he gave himself a nice out by referring only to "non-emergency" bills, and perhaps one could argue that he has only signed emergency legislation. Even so, he has held on to two bills for more than five days without signing them, and posted neither online. If they were such great emergencies, why did he hold them so long? How about the Recovery Act? That one sat on his desk for three days while he glad-handed in Chicago for the weekend. It must have been a real emergency.

In the big picture, this particular broken promise seems pretty insignificant, but this is a man who promised to be the most transparent President ever. It turns out that he is unable or unwilling to make even the smallest steps towards the grandest goals (that's right, a Chicago politician cited transparency as a lofty goal). It doesn't exactly inspire confidence in his ability to perform the more integral parts of his job that require more than an administrative assistant to scan and upload a document to a website.

You own a gun, oppose abortion, or served in the military.

 Over the weekend, Janet Napolitano's DHS leaked a memo outlining the threat that homegrown, right-wing extremist groups pose to the United States. The report states that "hate groups" are on the rise and will likely recruit returning veterans in order to take advantage of their military training. The groups are largely perceived to be "anti-government." I wonder if they're also anti-CNN? Perhaps FoxNews is providing the marching orders.

Many on the left have defended the report and ridiculed conservatives like Rush Limbaugh, Oliver North, and even Michael Steele for their outrage. Their argument is not unlike the situation of Democrats complaining of "patriotism questioning." That is to say, their outrage proves that they fit the bill; they must be right-wing extremists in order to be so upset. Indeed, the report references neo-nazis and white-supremacists, but it also clearly states that these groups will identify with single issues like abortion, imigration, and gun rights.

Conservatives are not sticking up for neo-nazis, they're sticking up for any and every American with strong convictions on these issues. An excellent example of a single-issue group that fits this bill: the Catholic Church. Law enforcement cannot profile Arabs or Persians based on the suspicion of being Muslim, but maybe DHS will start arresting those of us with pocket rosaries and crucifix necklaces. Come to think of it, not only am I Catholic, but I ordered information from the NRA months ago but never received it. Perhaps I am now on a government watch list somewhere.

Then there are simple dismissals that these reports happen all the time; what a laugh. The same people who attacked President Bush for eavesdropping on calls originating overseas (interestingly, no one has complained that President Obama employs the very same eavesdropping strategy to this day) is somehow okay with reports claiming that right-wing extremists pose a greater domestic threat than radical Imams in American Mosques or foreign terrorists crossing our southern border.

What the administration has really done, is single out mainstream political views and thrown them in a paragraph mentioning neo-nazis and Timothy McVeigh. This is supposed to scare us into believing that we are all crazy radicals for valuing life and liberty. Fortunately for the Obama administration, it's already working with some people. I came into work Monday and a co-worker said, "well, we survived the weekend without a right-wing extremist attack." After probing a bit, I discovered that she was actually attempting to make a serious connection among "right-wing radicals,"the Branch Dividians, and Timothy McVeigh (both famously occurring on April 19th). She then informed me that she feels far more threatened by right-wing radicals than Islamic terrorists.

I told her I was a conservative Republican and she did not talk to me again. It was a productive day.

The summary of events since Americans elected President Obama has led to an atmosphere of inevitability when it comes to national health care, energy taxes, and permanently engorged entitlement programs. As a result, many Republicans have suggested that the so-called systematic failure of capitalism means that Republicans must become Democrat-Lite in order to regain power; this is evidenced by the positions of Senator Spector and Governor Crist on stimulus spending and Senator McCain on energy and the environment (just to name a few). Unfortunately, this delusion is fueled by the supposed resurgence of the David Cameron led Conservative Party of Great Britain, which is built on his newly crafted "modern conservatism."

The comparison is certainly compelling in its history, that is to say, the fall of the Tories in Britain is starting to look a snazzy foreign film on which an unimaginative Hollywood director decided to base the next big American blockbuster. In 1997, the Conservatives lost power, largely due to rampant corruption, at the hands of a charismatic young politician who promised free markets and an expansive, motherly government. Wow! We can have it all!

After years out of power, the Conservatives are poised to recapture Parliament, but more due to Gordon Brown's ineptitude and unpopularity than a brilliant new platform. In fact, the Cameroons have based "modern conservativism" on nothing more than  a promise not to dismantle Britain's failing national healthcare system, or reform its failing public school system. Its unifying ideology seems to be a dedication to replacing stodgy white men with women and minorities while promising to honor a supremely vague call for "social action." Apparently, the Brits are prepared to replace their failed Obama-esque Labour Party with what appears, at its very best, to be some iteration of "compassionate conservatism," which, I believe, was also a massive failure.

If Cameron's Conservatives manage to win, it will only be because they proved less incompetent than the dolts currently running that country. That may be good enough for Great Britain, but Republicans in the States cannot afford to rebuild a party based on a goal to be less incompetent than Nancy Pelosi. As Dr. David Anderson might say, "Raise the bar.

With just one and a half hours until the polls close, I feel a need to remind everybody that today is consolidated election day for many local elections and the Illinois 5 Special Election to replace Rahm Emmanuel. So if you have not yet, please go to your polling place and vote, especially if you live in the fifth district where you have the opportunity to elect Rosanna Pulido to the United States Congress.

If you are not sure where to vote, please click Here .

We have the opportunity today to speak out against Chicago corruption at the ballot box, and next week there will be more great opportunities to let your voice be heard.

On Tuesday, April 14th at 4pm,RNC Chairman Michael Steele will be at the Union League Club of Chicago, for details, location, or to RSVP click Here . It will be a wonderful opportunity to meet other Republicans in Chicago, and to meet our new party chairman.

As everybody already knows, Wednesday April 15th is Tax Day. But it is also a day to let our elected officials know that we do not approve of their irresponsible spending, borrowing, and taxing. To make this known, members of the Chicago Republican Party will be participating in the Tax Day Tea Party at Daley Plaza from 12 - 2pm.  Members of the party will also be collecting non-perishable food items at the same location. The purpose of the food drive is to demonstrate the generosity and perserverance of the American people. We do not need the government to take care of our hungry; we can take care of each other without being forced through excessive taxes. So, we encourage you to drop by Daley Plaza on April 15th and donate a can of Pork 'n' Beans to the cause. We will be delivering all food items to the Greater Chicago Food Depository. For more information visit the FaceBook Page, or if you are interested in volunteering your time to this cause, please email This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

 Last, but not least, the next Chicago Republican Party open meeting will be heldon Thursday April 16th at 7pm at theheadquaters: 1549 W Blackhawk. We will outline the potential organizational structure of the party, discuss upcoming and possible events, etc. Please make an effort to attend. It is important that we all take in an active role in the formation of this fledgling party; unfortunately, we all have hang tight as we work out all the kinks, but we have to keep the ball rolling.

During the election, Republicans argued over and over again that Barack Obama's associations, namingly Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, were not irrelevant to his governing ability. John McCain said all along, a man's judgement can be seen in the company he keeps. On the other hand, Democrats and liberals made constant excuses for Rev. Wright and Mr. Ayers, and Obama himself said (more than once), "this is not the man I thought I knew..." Perhaps he should do a better job getting to know his friends. But the crux of the argument, at least as it was made to me many times, was essentially this, "What are you so afraid of? Do you actually think he's going to make Bill Ayers his running mate or put him in the cabinet?"

Senator McCain may not have been the best candidate, but he was dead right on this one, and President Obama has revealed his poor judgement skills consistently since taking office. One look at the list of withdrawn nominees, and this point becomes quite clear.

 Just this week we have seen two of the more perilous examples. We can rest a tad easier at night now knowing that Charles Freeman will not be running the National Intelligence Committee. Surely, the staunch anti-semite will have no trouble garnering an audience for his drivel about how this proves the power of the "Israel Lobby,"but the danger of Mr. Freeman was not only his mid-east policy. This is a man with an apparently cozy relationship with the Chinese government who honestly believes that the Chinese government's slaughtering of hundreds of peaceful protesters in Tienanmen Square was too soft a response. To offer legitimacy to these kinds of views would undermine any and all American credibility abroad.

Even with Freeman's withdrawal, however, President Obama has given us new reason to fear his judgement. Meet the Department of State's newest legal advisor, Harold Koh. Mr. Koh and his radical legal philosophy should feel right at home in the Obama administration. Those who love the United Nations will love his "transnational legal process." That's the one where we interpret the United States Constitution according to the legal norms of, you guessed it, other countries. And aside from accusing the US of partaking in an "axis of obedience" with North Korea and Sadam-era Iraq, he also believes that the transnational legal process should allow Shari'a Law to be enforced in the United States. So, according to the left, Catholic Bishops and Mormon PACs have no right to express political views because it somehow violates the separation of church and state, but Muslim law should be enforced the the US legal system.

I guess he technically isn't Bill Ayers.

For the past two weeks we have been bombarded with news stories and Politicians scorning Wall Street philistines, specifically in response to the recent AIG bonuses. Unfortunately, most of this outrage is either misdirected or misguided. But as long as empty populist rhetoric helps you sleep at night, by all means, join the chorus of hapless sycophants. Others, however, might be interested in the derivation of this largely manufactured controversy.

First of all, these bonuses were written into the contracts of each and every AIG executive who received one; had AIG not honored these contracts, they would be facing legal action from each of those executives. This fact, surprisingly, was not completely lost on Congress, and that is the reason the so-called Dodd Amenment (specifically the part that set a deadline by which bonuses should be reported) ever made it into the bill to begin with. Congress was reminded that they should not be altering the obligations of contracts and were forced to set a specific date for bonuses. To say that Senator Dodd, President Obama, or Secretary Geithner were somehow incognizant to this fact, is simply inconceivable. The proper question is not why AIG was allowed to pay their employees their contractually obligated bonuses, but why the aforementioned officials feigned outrage and ingnorance.

Of course, they were preying on the populist tendencies of Americans to lash out at "greedy Walls Street fat cats" who cannot possibly deserve bonuses; and maybe they don't, but Messrs. Dodd, Obama, and Geithner could not care less whether or not those bonuses are received or deserved. They do, however, care about keeping Americans in the dark about the dealings of AIG since receiving federal bailout money. Since accepting that oversized novelty check from Congress, AIG has doled out over $120 billion dollars in cash, collateral, and payouts to other banks and municipalities. But that's not the best part; 58 billion of those dollars have gone to foreign banks and interests, that's nearly four hundred times the amount paid in bonuses.

Think about this for a moment, the federal government has provided over $170 billion in tax money to "rescue" AIG, and AIG has been spreading that money to countless entities around the world. Apparently, our government can get away with this, but if you or I were to draw up a such a scheme, it would be called money laundering, and we would be in jail.

But you're still angry about those bonuses, right?

Just eight weeks into his Presidency, Barack Obama has delivered on at least one promise, the one where he radically increases the size and scope of government. But that was not actually why he was elected.

Senator Obama won the election the moment John McCain said, "The fundamentals of the economy are sound." Economics may not have been McCain's strength, but this utterance afforded Senator Obama a chance to convince Americans that he was the more economically competent of the two.

The truth is that President Obama would rather ensure that every worker is unionized and has access to government run, carbon-neutral, health care, than even attempt to wrap his (or anybody else's) brain around the economic woes of the nation. Just take a look at Timothy Geithner's Treasury Department; he has no help. Because President Obama has failed even to appoint the necessary positions in that department. It's like watching Robert Redford in The Candidate all over again; only it's been eight weeks and many Americans are wondering if President Obama is still pacing the Oval Office asking, "What do we do now?"

So, what does he do now? He gives the nation constant reminders that this crisis was inherited; it was like this when he got here. Whatever you do, do not blame him. Sure enough, it will not hurt him to blame Bush for a while, nor will it hurt to break his promise to put "an end to petty grievances." Much of the crisis was, in fact, inherited; consequently, this tactic could buy him time and goodwill. It will not, however, absolve him of the responsibility of addressing the crisis in the present.

He claimed decisive action when he passed the his enormous stimulus bill, but scoffed when anybody suggested that stimulus might refer to something other than careless spending on Harry Pelosi's running wish list of liberal ideals. Taxing emissions and socializing medicine will not stimulate this economy, nor will ignoring the needs of the Treasury Department or the failure of that department to offer any real plan. If national health care is too important to wait, why is economic policy too much to ask for?

It is time for President Obama to take econimic policy off the back burner and get serious. If he cannot realize that Americans want a real plan for the economy, and not just a further march to socialism, he will face a harsh reality in 2010 and 2012: even his goodwill will eventually run out and Geaorge W. Bush still won't be on the ballot.

Anybody keeping up with the news or living overseas may have come across this embarrassing story, but for most Americans watching their local news or living in their prObama echo-chamber have managed to avoid the latest international embarrassment. I know, President Obama was supposed to revive America's image abroad, but his showing in the last few weeks has been less than stellar.

While his first major blunder went mostly unnoticed, it is still inexcusable.

Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, British Prime Minister Tony Blair sent a bust of Sir Winston Churchill for President Bush to display in the Oval Office. Prime Minister Churchill joined the busts of fellow wartime leaders Dwight Eisenhower and Abraham Lincoln. Upon inauguration, the British government informed the new President that the bust could remain at least another four years. President Obama packed Sir Churchill in a crate and sent him to the British Embassy, where he currently resides in the office of ambassador Sir Nigel Sheinwald. The action, while unexplained by the President himself, is thought to be a response to Churchill's suppression of the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya, which resulted in the torture and death of the President's grandfather Hussein Onyango Obama. This may be the case, but an unceremonious return of such a meaningful gift on the part of the British government is unthinkable. Well, at least if we are still thought to share that "special relationship."

So maybe President Obama simply holds a grudge against the Churchill administration, very well; he cannot possibly mean to offend our British allies, can he?

Surely when Prime Minister Gordon Brown comes to visit, the President will be on his best behavior. That is, if best behavior means forgoing the traditional joint press conference and a noticeable, but inexplicable, absence of a single British flag at their initial meeting. Perhaps this was a simple oversight.

On to the traditional gift exchange. Prime Minister Brown offered the President two gifts. One was a first edition, seven volume biography on Sir Winston Churchill (maybe this is a touchy subject), but the second is as symbolically meaningful as it is useless. It was a pen holder, but not just any pen holder. This one was fashioned from the timber of the HMS Gannet, a retired British naval ship. Again, not just any ship. The HMS Gannet had a sister ship, the HMS Resolute, and if you have ever toured the White House or seen the move National Treasure 2, you know that the President's desk is referred to as one of two "Resolute Desks" because of the ship from which it was carved. Surely Prime Minister Brown did not come up with this gift himself, but it was quite a thoughtful gift.

Unfortunately, it seems President Obama probably did decide on the gift he chose to offer: A 25 DVD box-set of great American films (see the list here). That's right, a box full of standard production DVDs, the same ones you can buy at Blockbuster. Not only that, the United States country code embeded on the disc likely prevents a single one of them from playing on a British DVD player. Oh well, I guess it's the thought that counts. Right?

While I think this speaks to either the disrespect or the profound ignorance of our President (At least President Bush gave Gordon Brown a bomber jacket), it also speaks of our nation. Yes, I believe he failed in his effort to project our nation's image on the world stage, but it was actually a highly American thing to do. In our ever more casual world, we have forgotten what passes as respect. A set of movies that can be purchased at any retail store, no matter how great, is not a show of respect; presumably they have video stores in Britain. On the other hand, Britain gave us a gift nobody else could have, that would have meant nothing had it come from anybody else. Perhaps our President should give that kind of thought to just one thing he does in office; he has not thus far.

This is the kind of agenda we must push; otherwise, history will judge us as the party that stood by and compromised while our nation crumbled around us; we are not Neville Chamberlain. This is no time to bow to the radical left agenda, but a time to propose our own radically different one. 

It is time to choose our Republican candidate for the fifth district, and it's an important one. This is high profile seat and the last two Congressmen to hold it have gone on to do bigger and better (or maybe much worse) things. It is the only primary/election going on in the country at the moment, and once we have our candidate, he or she will likely garner a portion of the national spotlight for the next month. The point is, you should be voting. If you are not sure where to vote, you can find out here.

Hopefully you are familiar with the candidates, if not, they are in ballot order with links to their respective websites:

 Tom Hanson

Jon Stewart

Gregory Bedell

Rosanna Pulido

Daniel S. Kay

David Anderson

 Now. Go. Vote.

As a Texas native, and a campaign worker in Louisiana, I can certainly name a few faults with Governors Rick Perry and Bobby Jindal, but along with Governors Barbour, Otter, and Sanford (of Mississippi, Idaho, and South Carolina, respectively), they have shown the rest of the Republican Party what leadership is all about. Much like the House Republicans who stood united in steadfast opposition to the so-called stimulus bill, so have these governors refused funds for expanded entitlements. As Texas Governor Rick Perry puts it:

"If this money expands entitlements, we will not accept it. This is exactly how addicts get hooked on drugs."

One major provision of the stimulus package  provides increased funding for entitlement programs like unemployment and Medicaid; the problem (besides the obvious): the funding is temporary. The stimulus will provide federal funding for the expansion, but expire just in time to leave the states with inflated budgets. It is unrealistic to expect that the thousands of citizens the Democrats plan to add to the entitlement rolls will suddenly be dropped from coverage in two years. But while it looks like a scheme to leave states with the bill, the more likely result is an indefinite extension of federal funds; as this was no doubt Pelosi's plan from square one. If that is the case, expect the cost of this bailout to balloon into the $3,000,000,000,000 range.

Governor Barbour of Mississippi points out the worst part of the deal:

"we will absolutely have to raise our payroll tax on employers to keep benefits running after the federal dollars run out. This will cost our state jobs, so we'd rather not have these dollars in the first place."

So while RINO governors like Schwartzenegger and Presidential hopeful Charlie Crist play suckup with President Obama for rescue money to paper over their budget shortfalls, they seem not to understand what Perry, Jindal, Barbour, Otter, and Sanford do: that, in the long run, this stimulus will leave the states with larger deficits, higher taxes, and worse-off citizens.

Here in Illinois, we must find our own Bobby Jindals and Mark Sanfords, who are willing to stand up for conservative principles in the face of the ever-Francification of this great nation. But when the Republican Party calls for a national leader, remember these five governors.

 

 

Lately, there has been incessant talk of the need for Republicans to be a "big tent" party. Just the phrase makes me shudder, and the party faithful should tread very cautiously in this disingenuous  pursuit of self-discovery.  There seems to be a misguided notion of what exactly "big tent" means, and this is a point of view that the media pundits will gladly perpetuate in the pursuit of an ever more progressive citizenry.  Former congressman Tom Delay used to say that his goal was to push the perceived center to the right as often as possible, making it easier to pursue conservative policies. Believe it, the Democrats paid attention to Mr. Delay.

 The term itself seems to mean a broadening of the party's base; this is not a bad idea in itself, so long as the emphasis is on base. We cannot continue to enforce exceedingly stringent litmus tests on a narrow set of issues, but this does not mean moving left. It means focusing on the things that make us conservative. United opposition to the so-called stimulus is a good example, and the proverbial tent will immediately broaden if we offer a real choice. As it stands now, one party wants the government to control your entire life, and the other party (ours) wants to control most of your life. The number one issue should be leaving ordinary sentences alone. Taking a little less of their money and concerning the government with fewer aspects of their lives. Most people just want to be left alone; we should be offering that.

There are droves of conservatives and libertarians who are put off by our obsession a narrow set of issues, but that does not necessitate a leftward shift. It's not about abandoning social issues; it is about focusing on broader issues with wider appeal.

If you support the Freedom of Choice Act, late term abortion, and the opposition of parental notification, this will probably never be the right party for you. But if abortion simply isn't that important to you, we should have something else to offer. That is what "big tent" means. It means offering well-reasoned positions on a wide range of issues, and retaining and gaining those voting blocs that should naturally fall within our realm. It does not mean compromising our positions or principles to win elections. After all, what is the purpose of having principles if our intention is to abandon them at every possible opportunity?

The Republican Party is inherently pro-life, pro-gun, anti-tax, and (allegedly) anti-waste; those things are simply not going to change. There is no sense attempting to court voters who vehemently disagree with us on these core issues. Instead, we should focus on voters who are unsure or moderate on these issues and convince them with a breadth of equally important, equally efficacious policy positions. We cannot and should not be trying to convince voters that the Republican Party is something fundamentally different than what it was a few months ago; rather, we should show them that it is something more. 

Roland Burris may not be a Senator yet, but he is a "visionary" and a "trailblazer" whose election to statewide office (comptroller and attorney general) was "predestined."

 In case you are somehow unfamiliar with this historical giant whose impact on the state of Illinois is immeasurable and will be remembered in history books for generations, he has insured that his legacy will not be forgotten. Behold, the monument that Roland Burris built. No really. This is an actual photograph of the the monument he had built for himself, to commemorate his final resting place should his ever divine and sacred spirit leave this earth.

 Now imagine the response if a Republican, any Republican, built this monstrosity in his or her own honor. Roland Burris is not merely a hack, a crony, or even a disgrace; he is a joke. To take this man, or the governor who appointed him, seriously, would be a monumental mistake of proportions only possible by the citizens of Illinois. Twice.

President-elect Barack Obama is rounding out the appointments for his potential cabinet, and today he announced Arne Duncan, Chicago public school executive,  as the Secretary of Education. This is just the latest in a timeline of events that will eventually leave voters repeating a familiar refrain, "I thought they were going to be different."

After ousting an ineffective Republican Congress in 2006, voters have reinforced an ineffective Democratic Congress because they still believe that George W. Bush was holding them back. Soon they will discover the Democrats aren't so different after all.  Likewise, the tired chorus of cronyism allegations against President Bush will subside in favor of hypocritical self-righteousness.

Forget about Rahm Emmanuel. Sure, he's a Chicagoan and the successor to Rod Blagojevich's Congressional seat, but that's nothing. Arne Duncan is the chief executive of one of the most underperforming school districts in the nation; a district in which a lowly 6 of every 100 high school freshman earn four year college degrees and only 55% even graduate high school. What exactly has Mr. Duncan done to deserve this substantial promotion, a cabinet appointment in the new administration? Well, he's from Hyde Park of course, not mention he plays basketball with the coolest President-elect this side of Abe Lincoln. With those kind of credentials, it's astonishing that it has taken him this long. 

Apparently, this is what passes as judgement in the Obama administration. He obviously has a grand vision for the future of America:

On January 21, 2009, America will wake up, grab a paper and a coffee. Governor Blogojevich will be on trial, and Barack Obama will roll out his all-star team including David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel, and Arne Duncan. Then, with one collective look of confusion Americans will ask themselves: "Did we just elect a Chicagoan to the Presidency? Woops."

Well, they sure know how to pick 'em here in Illinois. We have one governor in the slammer and another out on bail, both on counts of corruption and fraud. And one of them still has the power to appoint Barack Obama's Senate successor. Could the state of Illinois be the biggest embarrassment in the Union? Perhaps.

Congratulations Illinois, for consistently electing criminals and sleaze bags. Oh, and good luck America, I hope everybody enjoys Barack Obama.

 

 UPDATE: A delicious bit of irony surrounding the arrest of Gov. Blagojevich: today, December 9, 2008, is International Anti-Corruption Day .

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin is requesting that President Bush commute the sentence for Illinois' last Republican governor, George Ryan. Senator Durbin is friends with Ryan's wife Lura Lynn, and believes that at 74, she should have her husband back home; Durbin is not requesting a pardon, just an early release. Apparently, all that racketeering and tax fraud can't pay to put her in  a home.

This is the man that, with plenty of help, has destroyed the Republican Party in Illinois, and his actions are symptomatic of  all that is wrong with the state. Republicans should want nothing to do with this scumbag. In fact, the Sun Times reported last week that his wife said, " if her husband had to do it over, he would govern the same way as he did before." So, exactly why should anybody feel sorry for this guy?

The very least that President Bush can do for the Republican Party is not commute Ryan's sentence; it would be entirely wrong, and incredibly foolish. The national image of our party is a corrupt one, represented by the likes of George Ryan, Mark Foley, Trent Lott, and Tom DeLay. We must take a stand against corruption in our own party before we can credibly accuse the Democrats of anything. 

So, when Dick Durbin argues for the release of George Ryan before President Bush, he should answer in the familiar refrain of Ryan's attorney, "Who Cares?"

Besides, if it means so much to Dick Durbin, he can just ask his junior Senator.