Where Is the Leadership?

Throughout our nation's short history, we generally see crisis produce leadership. Either the man or woman on the spot rises to the occasion or someone emerges unexpectedly.

We see neither happening at least to this point.

Obama, let's pity him a second, started his campaign during rosy good times. The fallout from Clinton era policies on mortgages had not yet reared its ugly head. He figured he could become president based upon disenchantment with Iraq, surrender in that war, and live happily ever after.

The Democrats goofed by backing and nominating him. His shotgun, yet vapid approach to any and all problems mystifies even liberals. Obama does everything the Left expects in a leader. He speaks well, lowers himself to levels presidents normally do not stoop into, and he backs watered down Marxist ideals. He does all of this with a mind boggling incompetence. The latest gaffe was writing a letter to the French president. That in itself is not bad. Calling him by his predecessor's name is. He may remember that the next time someone addresses him as "President Bush." As if anyone could mistake this guy for Bush.

Republicans have done little better. Who represents us? I had, and still have, a lot of hope for Michael Steele. However he has strumbled out of the gate himself. Luckily running a political party does not have as high stakes as running a nation. Mitt Romney is hanging back, not wanting to campaign three years too early as Giuliani and Hillary Clinton did.

Newt Gingrich has stepped into the limelight a little more often recently. Should hard times continue, Gingrich may set himself up as the perfect candidate to oppose Obama. He has intellect, experience, and substance. Additionally he has a powerful and confrontational style that will seem refreshing after four years of Obama droning on and on in his faux statesmanlike voice. I also expect that Gingrich will continue to not require a teleprompter. However he has not yet grasped at the chance to lead.

For all of the gloom and doom forecasting about the GOP though, it is not time to panic. Leadership will emerge in the next couple of years. It also does not appear that this president will cease screwing up any time soon. Opposition to Marxism combined with strong articulation of party beliefs should restore the vitality to the GOP.

Vice Presidential Nominees?

John McCain's first question as nominee is the most difficult. Who will share the ticket?

Geographical logic points to the South to balance McCain's western origins. He needs to shore up a very questioning southern base, especially if Clinton rebounds and gains the Democratic nomination. A southern conservative would be extremely helpful.

Mike Huckabee looks like a good choice on the surface. He campaigns well in the South due to his impoverished childhood and religious beliefs. Huckabee brings to the table a man experienced in domestic issues. However in this race the GOP should shy away from a "two white guy" ticket. George W. Bush produced the most diverse administration in the history of the country. The Republican Party has done a great job in the past ten years developing female and minority leaders. Who could fit the bill?

Elizabeth Dole currently serves as the US Senator from North Carolina. She formerly ran the Red Cross and ran for president in 2000. She brings assets to the table, such as her congenial husband Robert who ran for president in 1996. Robert Dole also suffered serious wounds in combat and was a leader in the Senate for many years. Dole has avoided the limelight for the past eight years. This could help or hurt.

Senator Mel Martinez from Florida has great influence in that state's powerful Cuban community and could help sway moderate and Hispanic voters elsewhere. California could come into play for the GOP in 2008 and Martinez would only help. Martinez has the confidence of the RNC and has worked very hard to help the national party leadership.

Michael Steele from Maryland has electrifying charisma and energy. When he ran in the last election, civil rights groups in his state showed their hypocrisy by pelting him with Oreo cookies. He also showed an ability to connect with conservative Western Marylanders. I remember in 2006 speaking with some rather confused older voters in West Virginia who expressed the hope that "you help Steele beat Byrd." Steele also holds strong conservative credentials. His ability to make such a strong impression on Western Maryland and Eastern West Virginia means that Steele could find receptive audiences elsewher ein the South. However his national exposure has been limited.

McCain also has an asset in Rudolph Giuliani who has his own backing. For many reasons, he would make an unsuitable vice presidential nominee, but might help the ticket as a proposed Secretary of State or Attorney General. George W. Bush benefited from early speculation that the respected Colin Powell would be his chief diplomat.

The vice presidential nomination is one of McCain's most important choices and will go a long way towards determining whether or not he wins come November.

Keeping it Real

"I don't believe Bible-believing Christians should participate in the mainstreaming of Mormonism." -- Brian Bigelow, Fayette County Delegate (and Huckabee voter) to the West Virginia GOP Convention on February 5, 2008, as quoted in USA Today.

Is this what our party stands for? Mindless sectarian fear of another faith as a basis for electing (or not electing, in this case) the President of the United States?

I don't know who Brian Bigelow is, except that he originally supported Rudy Giuliani. So, for Mr. Bigelow it's more important to defeat--gasp!--a Mormon than to defeat someone who supports abortion rights and the gay agenda? Is that what "Bible-believing Christians" stand for?

I more than realize that the issue is more or less moot with the exit of Governor Romney from the presidential race, but this is something that we--as a party, as a conservative movement--must confront and defeat. Someday there will be another Mormon running for president. Someday, a Mormon will run for your county commission, or for the legislature, or for a statewide office. Are we going to allow this same hate to torpedo those future candidacies as well?

Will evangelicals of Mr. Bigelow's ilk require future candidates to sign off on a particular creed or statement of religious beliefs? Does a candidate have to be a young-earth creationist to get his OK? What about a rejection of UPC bar codes? Mark of the beast, you know.

Next Year is Next Week

2008. It's almost here.

Another presidential election season, one of the most uncertain in years, is upon us. Frankly we have no idea who from either party will be nominated, much less elected. Rudolph Giuliani and Hillary Clinton have campaigned for this year since seemingly the 1990s but struggle to build support within their own parties. Giuliani looks too liberal for many Republicans and Clinton has become anathema to the Communist kookies. Once again the Republican party offers a variety of strong and moderate candidates while the opposing side offers a lineup of aspiring George McGoverns.

With the public and even the media, everyone but the Democrats, recognizing success in Iraq the issue focus will shift to the economy. Apparently seven years of prosperity do not earn Republicans high marks. The housing market collapse and high energy prices will likely replace Iraq as the main issue for the Democrats. Neither of these issues falls very close to the purview of a US President. Since the Democrats control Congress, too much harping on these issues could boomerang on them.

Within West Virginia, this looks like a year that Republicans could make gains. The venerable Jon Blair Hunter's seat is open and Gary Howell will make a strong run for the seat. The 14th Senatorial district is one of the most difficult in the state in terms of how the geography separates the various regions. However Dave Sypolt's resounding victory in 2006 indicates that the district preferred a candidate committed to developing business while protecting property and personal rights. If Manchin picks 2008 to launch an assault on old time liberal Democrats in West Virginia, a united GOP would benefit from the fallout.

Unfortunately no major candidates have stepped forward to run for governor or to challenge Alan Mollohan in the First Congressional District. Both incumbents in these races appear very entrenched. Few people want to devote the time to run a real campaign and likely even fewer want to invest a lot of money.

One of the big problems facing those running for office is that fatigue has already set in. Presidential campaigns started way too early in this cycle and many are already fed up with mailings, news coverage, and other aspects of the political season. Politics has a time and place in the American calendar. It no more seems natural to see debates on who will be the next president a year and a half before the election than it does to watch college football on Wednesday night.

In any event, for those still interested, it promises to be an exciting season.

Commencing Chaos

John Leo of Rudolph Giuliani's Manhattan Institute recently wrote an article about UCLA's graduation problems. Apparently every ethnic group and its uncle plus different gay groups have their own graduation ceremonies, all paid for by the university. This seems like typical California lunacy but take note. Local companies in the Potomac Highlands have already started requiring their employees to learn Spanish. To some, ethnic pluralism means not just respecting differences, but also having the right to have government and other services provided to them in their own language.

Lets look at two nations from around a century ago. Both contained large numbers of ethnic groups with different cultures than the dominant one. The first nation, we'll call it country A, required its groups to assimilate into society, at least to the point of learning the language and functioning in the dominant culture. Country B recognized each of its fifteen major ethnic groups as a unique and viable culture.

The vast majority of country A's ethnic peoples learned to speak the dominant language, but they still retained some of the aspects of their original culture. The groups grew patriotic to the point where they took pride in fighting for it when the time came. Country B saw its ethnic groups demand more and more concessions. When it went to war many of its ethnic peoples turned against it despite the extreme concessions and toleration shown them. That country no longer exists.

Country A is the United States but we have not learned from the positive policies used a century ago. In that case ethnic groups strengthened our nation for a new century of prosperity. Country B, Austria-Hungary, was torn apart because the ethnic groups within it did not assimilate to the dominant culture.

Now Austria-Hungary's fate is not necessarily ours. Many other differences exist that separate the two systems. However it does demonstrate that maintaining strong separation of cultures leads to severe problems. We need to return to the policy of not coddling those that do not speak English. It is not fair to native born citizens, nor is it fair to those that came here and worked hard to learn how to livehere. The more incentive they have to learn how to speak and function in the United States, the faster they will learn.

Coming to America (legally) ought to be the start of opportunities for them and us to benefit each other, but by the standards of this country not the one they just left. It should not be the commencement of cultural chaos.

Election 2008 holds importance for a lot of reasons. One of the more interesting issues that we face in this election is a discussion of what it means to be conservative. What issues drive Republicans and conservatives in general?

It boils down to the nominee Republicans select for the presidency. Certainly Rudolph Giuliani has the visibility and experience. His economic credentials indicate that a Giuliani administration will make tough decisions regarding the budget and work back towards balance. The potential leadership Giuliani brings in terms of managing our economy and getting our budget under control could lead to true reforms in social security and the tax code. President Bush pushed these issues hard and gained no traction. Giuliani might succeed where Bush could not in this sphere. Additionally a Giuliani administration likely will support less burdens on business. This would help set the country on a sound economic path for decades to come.

Giuliani appears questionable on the very issues that former Senator Fred Thompson has used to garner strong support. Fred Thompson has strength in economic conservatism, but has also earned the support of social conservatives. The Tennessean strongly opposes abortion and same sex marriages, issues that galvanize conservatives in rural America.

Liberals already speculate that social conservatives would not turn out to support a Giuliani campaign. Perhaps if they nominate a non-entity like Obama that might be the case. Conservatives of all stripes dislike intensely Hillary Clinton and would vote for a dead cat rather than see her in office.

Conservatism in America lies at a crossroads. The nominee Republicans select for the presidency next year will strongly determine what conservatism will look like for a long time to come.