Recently John McCain proposed a Federal “tax holiday” on all gasoline from Memorial day to labor day. Hillary Clinton similarly supports the idea. The “Obamamaniacs” however, strongly oppose this idea.

Opponents of the tax holiday are as correct that it will not do much to ease the price at the pump as the proponents of the idea, who claim that it will ease the price - there are too many variables to be certain. Unfortunately, the Obamanics, in an effort to distinguish their god from Hillary and McCain have taken a very one-dimensional view of this solution. Regardless, there are some serious considerations we should make regarding taxes on vehicle fuel.

The very purpose of the tax holiday was not to directly turn thousands of dollars back to taxpayers, but to affect the entire consumer market – namely by minimizing the decrease in summer travel. Summer travel is peak business time for many small businesses across the country. If the American consumer fails to travel during the summer because of high fuel costs, it negatively affects the small business owners, who form the backbone of the U.S. economy.

Obamamaniacs, however, would have you believe that this tax holiday was bred out of stupidity and politics (are the two ever separate?) and that the real effect would be to line the pockets of big oil with more revenue, having little impact on the price we pay at the pump. The Obamamanics may be right, but that does not mean the tax holiday should not be enacted. A greater evil would befall the small business owners who rely on summer travel if travelers curtail their auto use in 2008.

Of course on one level it is hard to see how repealing any tax is a bad thing, let alone one that so negatively impacts the market. Taxes are bad, and federal use taxes, whose revenues are spread out over all 50 states, are bad for the consumer. Ultimately, what needs to happen is a total revamping of the Federal gas tax idea.

Presently gas tax is a combination for Federal, State and other local taxes, adding a not-so-insignificant amount to the price of a gallon. The trouble is that most of these taxes are arbitrary and imposed simply as a method to generate revenue. Any gas tax should be a use tax so that the revenue is provided directly to the streets, roads and highway funds the person buying the gas actually drives. Although this kind of tax on gas generates a higher price at the pump, it also results in a better road system. California, for example, has a state use tax on gasoline. Their highways are comparatively smooth, constructed quickly and the stoplight systems are near perfect - this is a use tax at work. Maintaining a world-class infrastructure is of paramount importance to the Republic. The trouble with the current system is that the tax is a federal tax, rather than a state tax, which means that the revenue is applied to projects that may have little to do with our roads. Accordingly, if we have to retain a federal fuel tax at all, it would be better were it implemented as follows:

States should independently and individually adopt use tax on all motor vehicle fuel. Any governmental tax like this should be from the local, state government, not the Feds;
Abolish all current Federal tax on motor vehicle fuel;
Implement a small federal domestic transportation user fee on all goods transported via trucks using the interstate system. Based on weight of the payload, a percentage would be paid to the Feds for Federal highway projects. Truckers are the biggest beneficiaries of the Federal Highway System, so it fair that companies using truckers to ship goods should bear a fair share of the weight for its maintenance;

Of course, if were going to solve any of fuel problems, were going to have to increase the supply, which means more (responsible) domestic and hemispheric drilling, hugely increased refinery capacity, make major strides in fuel efficiency, and a make major investment in nuclear power. To achieve all this of course, it would be nice to adopt another tax break – a reduction in the corporate tax from 35% (second highest in the world) to 25% - a move that would stimulate investment, research and development, and the retention and expansion of domestic jobs…but then again, this is an idea endorsed by Senator McCain, and pilloried as “tax breaks for the rich,” by those on the left (including Clinton and Obama) who continue to view the economy through the thoroughly discredited Marxist lens of class warfare, finite wealth, and income redistribution.

Bill Clinton, once hailed as America’s “first black president,” has been disavowed by a once adoring black community. Geraldine Ferraro has been accused of being a secret racist.  Oprah Winfrey is labeled a feminist sell-out. The major campaigns eagerly pander to racial and socioeconomic groups, and try different combinations of divide and conquer strategies.  Black Americans are for Obama, and overwhelmingly admit that it’s a vote based on race, women are for Clinton and overwhelmingly admit that it’s a vote on gender. The two campaigns eagerly fight to curry favor with Hispanics. The wealthy are targeted for income redistribution, the poor are promised free medicine, and free-market capitalism is under full-scale assault.  A party who once railed against supposed voter suppression now openly practices it in key states, and a party whose name is synonymous with ideals of populist governance adopts a delegate system reeking of undemocratic elitism. For those who have long understood the American left, none of the bigotry, racism, divisiveness, extremism or elitism that is emblematic of the 2008 Democratic Presidential contest is surprising.  To understand the modern Democratic Party, one must recognize that it is a party built on racial, economic and socio-ethno-centric divisions.  It is a cynical party; a party that depends on a culture of victimhood and division that in turn generates the demand for governmental redress. Without division, without racism, without inequality, there can be no government programs to remedy them, no election year pledges to change society, no mission or great societal crusade to endlessly fight for - no modern Democratic Party. Change is the undeniable, mechanical, political nature of a so-called “progressive” party, and the disharmony wrought from a perception of inequality is its engine.

Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright is nothing more than a purveyor of disharmony, and sadly, far from atypical. Like the Democratic Party itself, he is a man dedicated to ginning up racial hatred, to sowing societal discord, and fostering ignorance as a means of creating a willing and motivated following. Like the liberal establishment at large, for Jeremiah Wright, race is both a spear and a shield. It provides cover for his own bigotry, hatred and apparent anti-American paranoia while at the same time supplying the very weapon to denigrate his country and foster the societal division needed to drive his wayward flock.  Jeremiah Wright’s message is not the message of Christ, it is not the message of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., it is not a message of peace, of reconciliation, or of hope.

The footage of Wright spewing hate-filled anti-American rhetoric was not the product of undercover video, or hidden cameras, they were excerpts from DVDs sold in his church gift shop. Far from slips of the tongue, or misconstrued remarks, they are messages Wright thoughtfully constructed and powerfully conveyed with all his rhetorical might.  These are messages that Wright is proud of, that he wanted others to see and hear, that he believes with conviction. Jeremiah Wright, believes that the United States government created the HIV virus to perpetrate genocide on people of color. He believes the U.S. government conspired to allow the Japanese to destroy Pearl Harbor. He believes that our country is controlled by “rich white people,” and describes his own nation as the U.S. of AmeriKKKa.  He is a man who curses and asks God to “damn America.”  On the Sunday following the 9/11 tragedies he used his pulpit to blame America for the crazed acts of 19 Saudi terrorists, claiming it was America’s “chickens coming home to roost” - an infamous line of the radical, black Muslim separatist leader Malcom X, and a forerunner of the virulently racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whom Wright honored with a lifetime achievement award.  Wright even traveled with Farrakhan to Libya to meet with terrorist leader Muammar el-Qaddafi. Wright has devoted his life to building a church committed to the “Black value system” and with a stated policy of commitment to Africa, not America. He has asked his followers to “pledge allegiance to black values” and proudly displays a document entitled the “Black Value System” that is so thoroughly racist that were one to substitute the word “black” for “white” it could have easily been authored by Josef Goebbels.

Wright’s is a message of victimhood, paranoia and racism wedded to Marxist concepts of class warfare and societal struggle, it is born of the radical Liberation Theology of the 1960s and it has dominated much of the left and black America for decades. To the many however, who are ceaselessly fed a diet of anti-Americanism and division by their preachers, their political leaders in the Democratic Party, and a hopelessly biased entertainment industry and mainstream media, it is not even viewed as remarkable. So pervasive is this kind of divisive rhetoric on the left, and within the black community, that Donna Brazille, longtime Democratic strategist, admitted on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, “I’ve known Jeremiah Wright and actually Jeremiah Wright is one of the more moderate black preachers.”

Under the best of circumstances, it would be difficult for Obama to distance himself from Wright, but once the deep connection between Wright and Obama is understood, it is impossible. Jeremiah Wright is Barak Obama’s self described “mentor!” Wright has been Obama’s pastor for twenty years, the man who married Michelle and Barak Obama and baptized their children. Obama credits Wright with leading him to Christ, and indeed, it was from one of Wright’s “sermons” that Obama borrowed the title for his best-selling political book. In a final elevation, Obama even appointed Wright to an all-black religious leadership committee for his campaign for President of the United States.

Attempting to distance himself from Wright was inviting the press to dig further into the murky relationship between Wright and Obama and the radical teachings of their organization. On Tuesday, an uncharacteristically unsure Obama took the stage before an overt display of American flags, designed to pay silent testament to Obama’s true love of country, a country his wife described as “downright mean,” populated by a people whose “souls are broken,” and a country in which she has admittedly never had pride until her husband’s late candidacy.  Obama himself reversed his earlier statements that he had not been present during any of Wright’s diatribes, and admitted to having personally heard controversial comments. Obama condemned the now publicized and indefensible statements of Wright, but far from distancing himself from Wright, Obama reaffirmed their close connection, saying he could no more “disown” Wright than he could the black community. In what could be dubbed the race-bait and switch speech, Obama delivered hackneyed platitudes on racial disharmony in America, and sought to parlay the issue into credentials for why he alone could solve America’s racial and socioeconomic inequities.  Obama’s attempt to refocus the media spotlight away from his own apparent bigotry by imputing racism to all of America was pathetic. Indeed, Obama even stooped so low as to criticize his own white grandmother for her alleged bigotry, a woman he admitted, greatly loved and sacrificed for him.

Far from saving Obama’s political hide, the speech was a pitiable smoke and mirrors show that unmasked the real Obama.  Inescapably, one must come to the conclusion that Obama either agrees with the teachings of his mentor, Jeremiah Wright, or alternatively that he joined the biggest church in his community for the sake of pure political advancement despite its overt radical racism and anti-Americanism. Obama is therefore either a radical, anti-American bigot or a man of pure political ambition, lacking significant conviction who continues to embrace a mentor with repugnant and indefensible views. In either event it is a devastating indictment of his personal beliefs and political ideals, a thorough evisceration of the core message of his campaign, and a political circumstance that makes Barack Obama both unelectable and unfit to serve as President of the United States.

Prince Charming is starting to gain some wrinkles … and grey hairs. Last week Fox News and the Drudgereport broke the “news” that Barak Obama’s pastor of twenty years has, since at least 2001, filled his sermons with hate filled rhetoric - helping to drive a wedge between the black comunity and every other community in Chicago and indeed America. That is, the leading Democratic candidate, who has based his campaign on a platform of unity and change has been preached to for twenty years by an overtly bigoted man who is working to maintain the racist status quo. To imagine that Barak Obama and his wife could be unaware of pastor Wright’s preachings or otherwise unaffected by it stinks of incredulity and phoniness. 

The distinction has been drawn by many in the mainstream media, that we cannot automaticaly impute pastor Wright’s beliefs to Mr. Obama.  Yet, we cannot ignore that casting aside the fiery rehetoric of his pastor and close confidant of twenty years speaks to Barak Obama’s insincerity and ambition. Specifically, Barak Obama has built a crazed following on a platform of unity, change and a being different from ordinary polictcs (traits all Presidential candidates speak to). Despite all this, however, and despite his fancy campaign slogans and excited college followers, Barak Obama has shown that he will act as any other politician would: He will manipulate and exploit for gain. Mr. Obama expolited the church’s connection with the black community when joined more than twenty years ago. Now, when his relationship with that same church is called into question, Mr. Obama abandons the church and pastor of twenty years, abandons the black community of Chicago for the hills of white America with claims of “I did not sit in the pew when that man was preaching”. Obama’s explanation does not pass the smell test for a sincerely response to the claims; such a hollow statement smells like a page from slick Willy’s book “I did not have sexual relations with that woman …”

Ultimately, this is a question of judgment. First, Mr. Obama’s decision to even join the Trinity church and be an outstanding member who donated tens of thousands of dollars to the church which openly supports the anti-semite Louis Farrakhan must be called into question. Secondly, if attends a church for twenty years - how ignorant can he be to not be aware of its mission and the oratory damntaion cast by its leading paster - also his friend and confidant. Furthermore, everyone must question the judgment and loyalty of a man that would so easily turn on his community and his church of twenty years, when the grey clouds start to gather.

Later today, Mr. Obama will attempt to explain his association with Trinity church and pastor Wright by couching the criticism in terms of racism. Mr. Obama will do something he has not done in pretty much the entire campaign - he will focus on the race issue, attempting to again, exploit the black connection. The damage is done, however, Mr. Obama, your campaign should just move on.

The black community should be offended that Barak so quickly abandoned his community for the simple reason Fox News has chased this story.

 Update

“I was not in the pews, with that man, Reverend White”

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. Obama speech 3/19/2008

“indeed I was”

Feeble would be any words we might pen to commerate the passing of one so wise and witty. Let us just say thank you William F. Buckley, Jr., thank you, and rest in peace.

In an interview  with a San Antonio radio station Monday, Obama accused the Clinton campaign of playing dirty tricks saying, “The notion that they would try to use this to imply in some way that I’m foreign, I think is, you know, unfortunate.”

The controversy surrounds a story first reported by Matt Drudge regarding a single photograph of Obama wearing a turban, and dressed in traditional Somali clothing during a 2006 visit to northern Kenya.  Northern Kenya is predominately Muslim, and both Obama’s father and stepfather were in fact Muslim.  During his visit, Obama took time to visit his grandmother and other members of his extended family, who unlike Obama, have retained their Muslim faith.

While Obama’s supporters have dismissed any discussion over his faith as inappropriate, questions have been raised about Obama’s connections to Islam given his personal history, cultural and familial ties, and his attendance of a church with leaders who have purportedly singled out radical, racist, Muslim leader, Louis Farrakhan for praise, and Farrakhan’s own endorsment of Obama this week. 

However in a surprising turn of events, Middle East news organization Al Jazeera may have unwittingly provided an alibi for the Clinton campaign, at least with regard to the photo’s origins.  On Tuesday, Al Jazeera’s English language site covered the photo controversy, but displayed a new and different version of the same enounter (right).  The existence of this photo proves that there are multiple photos of Obama in traditional Islamic clothing, and that multiple sources for these photos likely exist.  Whatever one’s view of Clinton’s campaign tactics, it is unlikely that the Clinton campaign is cooperating with the unpopular Al Jazeera news agency on a negative story about Clinton’s own attempt to smear Obama over connections to Islam.

Moreover, with multiple photos emanating from apparently multiple sources it is impossible to ascertain where the photos originated from, and how they arrived in the hands of various news outlets. Since the controversy broke, other photos of Obama in traditional African or Islamic garb have surfaced, prompting many to question Obama’s enthusiasm for foreign dress despite his outright refusal to wear an American flag pin while campaigning for President of the United States, and his wife’s admission that Obama’s campaign has made her proud of her country for the first time in her adult life.

Despite what his supporters would prefer, and rightly or wrongly, Obama’s religion, and his ties to Islam will likely be highly scrutinized at a time when America is engaged in a global war against Islamic elements, and especially considering the fervor with which the American left has denigrated and openly criticized the evangelical Christian faith of President George W. Bush and his supporters.

Ron Paul has been dismissed by the mainstream media and many in his own party as quirky and dovish, but the burning of the U.S. embassy in Belgrade begs the question: Is Ron Paul right?

The great dividend of American victory in WWII and in the Cold War has been the Pax Americana; a world largely at peace and kept in check by the American global supercop.  Where trouble arises American carriers and warplanes spring into action. The entire western hemisphere is no-go territory for aggressors who know it is America’s back yard. All Europe resides under the umbrella of American protection. Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan and Australia all rely on American deterrence. In Africa Libya bends to U.S. pressure, Egypt relies on American support and nations like Somalia and Sudan know that U.S. pressure can be brought to bear against them. In the Middle East America is engaged in a massive attempt to stabilize the region and plant the seed of Democracy in the Arab sands. Everywhere one looks, America’s presence can be felt…but is the price for America outweighing the dividends?

This of course is not to suggest that critics of America, namely the global left and the Muslim world are right in blaming America for all the world’s ills, indeed were it not for America, one cannot fathom the depths of inhumanity that the world would know.  Rather, it is question of what is in America’s best interests.

Can we afford to police the entire world? Why should Americans mortgage their future to keep troops in Korea where they are not wanted, or in Europe where they are not needed? How can we justify spending trillions for the defense of nations that oppose us at every step?  How can we bankroll our military with money borrowed from a latently hostile China and spend it defending Muslim populations openly hostile toward us? Why should not Iraq, with its wealth of oil reserves help pay for its own liberation?  What national security interests demand our involvement in internal Serbian affairs? How long can we continue to rationalize so many unintended consequences to our own foreign policy? How far can we push a depleted military before our own national security is jeopardized? In this time of transformation, is it not right to ask what America’s role in the world should be, and what is the best course of action to preserve America’s strength?  In short, is an American realignment needed? What would it look like? What would be the consequences?

These are the essential questions of our time, but as Paul as often noted, we are debating issues peripheral to policy.

The state of the world suggests that the next century has the potential to be as bloody as the one we have just emerged from. The increasing deadliness of technology and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in a world of non-state actors, rogue nations, and new global powers is a frightening scenario. Add in diminishing national resources, the interdependency of global economic systems, falling western birthrates and overpopulation in the 3^rd world, and the stage is set for global chaos.

America has long tried to keep the peace by being everything to everyone, and everywhere at all times. In many ways it has been successful and indeed noble, but it has not always been effective or without unintended consequences, and it has not been inexpensive.

It is often said that America is “the last best hope of man on earth.”  It is. But only a strong America, a robust America can meet the challenges of the next century. Continuing to bankrupt ourselves in order to keep the lid on a pressure cooker that all history suggests will boil over one way or the other is perhaps unwise. Perhaps it is time that Americans begin asking tough questions of themselves and their leaders. Rather than platitudes about change, perhaps Americans need specifics about direction. Perhaps it is time we look inward, toward building our reserves of strength before the real challenges of a new and dangerous century force our attention outwards once again.

It’s over. For better or worse, John McCain will be the Repulican nominee in 2008. Unfortunately, the only one in the country who seems unable to recognize that fact is Governor Huckabee.Everyone  instinctively knows that Huckabee cannot overtake McCain’s commanding delegate lead, and rather than following the gracious example set by Mayor Giuliani and Governor Romney, Huckabee seems intent upon wounding the presumptive GOP nominee and preventing him from using this critical time to unite the Party, fundraise, and work on creating the kind of nationwide grassroots organization that will be needed for the fall.

Many pundits once speculated that Huckabee was staying in the race long enough to prevent Governor Romney from winning, and hopefully earning a veep spot with a grateful John McCain.  Increasingly however, it appears that Huckabee’s campaign is really all about Huckabee. Far from waging some kind of heroic fight for the conservative heart of the GOP, it appears as though Huckabee is merely running a campaign of personal ambition, for continuing to embarrass John McCain is not the most intuitive way to win over the presumptive nominee or help the conservative cause.  As the syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer has noted, Huckabee seems intent on staying in the race long enough to overtake Governor Romney’s delegate count in order to earn himself 2012 bragging rights as the guy that came in second. Moreover, the otherwise unemployed Huckabee seems to be genuinely enjoying his time in the spotlight - making speeches to adoring crowds and touring from state to state like a country music star.

There is no question that Huckabee has run a good campaign, and there’s little doubt that he has skill as a politician and as a speaker, but enough is enough. Huckabee has proven his worth, demonstrated that he is now a national name in GOP circles, and must be considered amongst other likley candidates in the 2012 race - he’s probably even earned a right to address the Republican National Convention in September.  Yet irrespective of his losses today, Huckabee vows to fight on.

With each passing day, Huckabee’s campaign smacks more of pride and vanity than principle. With each passing week, Huckabee’s own stature is diminished by his attempts to remain in the spotlight. Governor Huckabee may keep playing his guitar, traveling from state to state, and delivering fiery speeches, but the longer he goes on, the smaller he seems. Alas, the candidate that seemed larger than life in Iowa is now the incredible shrinking Huckabee.

You ran a great campaign Governor, but now it’s time to recognize the inevitable, save your dignity, and bow out gracefully before it’s too late.

With the departure of Mitt Romney, all conservative hopes for retaining the White House have diminished. The 2008 Republican presidential nominee will be Senator John McCain.

Under the best of circumstances, retaining the White House following a  two term presidency is difficult - in recent decades only Ronald Reagan was able to achieve this feat with the election of his sitting vice president, George H.W. Bush. This year, it is particularly difficult. No president in recent memory has been as despised by the left as George W. Bush. Between an expensive and unpopular war, worries over a souring economy, etc., Bush is anathema to the left and unpopular among independents. Their frustration over his policies and the sheer indignity they feel at having what they believe to be an ignorant and unworthy man who beat Al Gore and John Kerry leading our Nation is palpable.

Given these factors, it is hard to see how any Republican could be elected, but to make matters worse, the GOP is about to nominate the one Republican that will do more to dissuade the enthusiasm, and financial support of his own party’s base than any other.

McCain would be the oldest man ever elected as a first term president, and his stances on important issues combined with what many conservatives feel is the relish with which he opposes them on those issues, has made for bitter feelings. Moreover, despite his soft-spoken demeanor at victory rallies, McCain is not known for his magnanimity, and most conservatives are not optimistic that McCain will reach out to them with anything approaching the same spirit shown to those across the aisle. Indeed, McCain’s initial admonishment to his conservatives critics to “calm down” has done little to assuage that pessimism.

But it’s not all bad. After all McCain is the one man that can reach out to independents and Democrats, right? Maybe not. 

It seems hard to imagine how McCain can win in November with just moderate and liberal Republicans, independents, and Joe Lieberman. This is still about red state/blue state, and if you can’t win all of Bush’s states, you’re not going to win in the fall. If McCain cannot find a way to not only heal the rift with this base, but indeed to motivate them to work for him, the entire efforts seems folly.

Moreover, too few Democrats and independents are likely to cast their lot with McCain given what are the two critical issues in this election thus far: the war and the economy.  On the first score, McCain is committed to the unpopular war, already being labeled as a “war monger” by Hillary Clinton, and foolishly providing Democrats with bumper-sticker ammunition - “McCain: 100 more years of war!”

On the later score, McCain has already and exceedingly foolishly conceded that he knows little about the economy - touting his reading of Alan Greenspan’s book, his pork-cutting habits, and support from Jack Kemp as qualifications for leading the world’s largest economy into the next growth cycle.

Add to this dismal recipe the determination of liberals of all stripes to take back the White House, the explosive enthusiasm for Barack Obama, and the historic novelty of electing either him or the Nation’s first female president, and a McCain victory is hard to envisage.

There are plenty of reasons for conservatives to support McCain, but by and large, they are attempts to mitigate the damage that will be done to the country by the leftists. McCain himself has yet to give conservatives a positive and constructive reason to vote for him, or a true vision of how a McCain presidency will help them to achieve their goals and aspirations, while advancing the central core of Reagan conservatism. We wait to hear from Senator McCain.

While some conservatives are ready to head for the hills, others know that we retreat at our own peril, and that of the Nation. The specter of Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama, leading our retreat in the War on Terror, stacking the Court, raising our taxes, instituting massive new entitlement spending and socialized medicine, etc., simply will do too much damage to our Nation to ignore.

In the end, many conservatives will vote for McCain, some won’t, but absent the kind of national security crisis that no true American would wish to see, anything short of a Herculean effort by a united GOP is likely to result in failure.

There is much debate about which candidate would be “easier” to run against in the fall - Clinton or Obama. There is little difference between them in terms of policy, but tactically speaking, there are some definite advantages to a Clinton run. An Obama candidacy, though devoid of substance, is likely to be unbeatable given the tearful, near hysterical enthusiasm being shown by his supporters as well as the titanic volumes of cash contributions he is generating. Obama’s weaknesses are his inexperience, and perhaps to a lesser degree his race. Obama clearly would be the greenest choice for president in quite some time, and many have speculated that America isn’t ready for a black president. So far however, there has been almost no discussion of Obama’s race amongst Republicans, while the Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, have been busily and openly race-bating.

Clinton’s weaknesses are many as a candidate, but she is somewhat less liberal and relatively more responsible on policy than Obama. As a candidate she is far less appealing to Democrats, deeply divisive within her own party and with the Nation as a whole, and she is presently cash-strapped. If victorious, Clinton will likely do more to galvanize GOP voters than almost any other Democrat, and while Obama will be strenuously opposed, his personal style, his race, and his “outsider” status may make him a harder target.

There is of course the prospect, even if it appears unlikely now, for a joint Clinton/Obama ticket. As to which candidate the Democrats ultimately select, or whether they select both, for the most part our feeling is that for now, it likely doesn’t matter. No matter who they nominate, and no matter who we nominate, the feeling in the country is decidedly against the Republicans; the presidency is not likely to go to the GOP.  It’s not pretty, but it’s better that we face the political facts now and focus our energy and resources on the places they can best be utilized.

Thus, it’s time for Plan B: The Senate.

The Senate will be the key to stopping the radical left agenda that will come from either Clinton or Obama. Not only can the Senate stop the revenue generating bills that will come from the House, but the Senate has a key role to play in the formation of foreign policy, the direction of the war, and the confirmation of judges. It is essential that all conservatives bury their differences and pledge their time, money and support to our Republican senatorial candidates.

There are 35 Senate races in 2008, and nearly half of the 49 GOP held seats are up for grabs. The Democrats by contrast have to defend only 12, and 10 are regarded as being relatively safe, while many long-held seats such as John Warner’s Virginia seat and Pete Domenici’s New Mexico seat will be hotly contested as both these veteran senators and others like them will be retiring. They may not all deserve our support, but nonetheless Republicans must pull out all the stops to assist every Republican Senator, including Norm Coleman and others, and must find a way to retain the seat held by Ted Stevens, who is currently under FBI investigation. The Republicans must put all their efforts into retaining every seat we have and doing our best to keep the Democrats from achieving a 51 member true majority, or worse, a filibuster-proof majority.

At the same time, we must work to pick up as many seats as possible in the House, which presents some easier targets, but ultimately has a different policy role than the crucial Senate, which must be regarded as priority one.

Our humble advice to all conservatives is to turn off the 24 hour cable news and stop obsessing about the presidential campaign until after the national party conventions. Focus on the 35 Senate races that will likely be all that stands between us and unrestrained liberalism. If you’re in a state where Senate seats are not up for grabs, adopt a candidate or two, and give of yourself, your time and your resources to keeping or winning seats for the values and issues more important than either the presidency or the Party. The race for the presidency shouldn’t be adandoned, but if we focus on winning in the Congress, we’re sure to drive up vote totals for John McCain.

The party of Ronald Reagan will rise again, in the meantime, lets roll up our sleeves, dig in, and hold down the fort.

Tonight’s Super Tuesday Primary leaves little to be positive about, even for McCain supporters.  Tuesday merely proved the degree to which the GOP is fractured, unenthusiastic, and weak.

Romney and Huckabee still have life in them, but McCain was the night’s big winner.  November is well off, but at this stage the fall forecast is dim. The Republicans will be entering the race with a 72 year old Senator, despised by large swathes of his own base, sluggishly propelled by a divided and deeply demoralized GOP electorate that is likely to produce an anemic campaign war chest.

By contrast, the Democrats, feverishly enthusiastic and rabid for change, will enter flush with cash, and led by either the Nation’s first woman nominee - backed by her husband’s famously formidable political machine or the Nation’s first black nominee - a hollow but undeniably charismatic candidate.

From here on out, we can likely expect a dramatic shift to the left. Either of these Democratic candidates will significantly raise our taxes, fling open the doors to our borders, enact economically crippling environmental policy, stack the Supreme Court with leftists, attempt to impose socialized medicine, and force a humiliating and ignominious withdrawal from Iraq. In the view of many conservatives, Senator McCain would only be slightly better on many of these issues, save the War.

No matter how you cut the cake, 2008 is shaping up to be a big Democratic year.

Whether anything can be done to mitigate this impending disaster remains to be seen, life has a way of changing the calculus suddenly and unpredictably, but at this stage, prudence demands that we prepare those tax shelters and buy an extra rifle while we still can.

An inglorious day for the GOP; all the signs point to a gathering storm.

Duncan Hunter wasn’t electable enough, Fred Thompson wasn’t exciting enough, and now, despite the fact that the Republican Party is about to nominate the one Republican that nearly all conservatives love to hate, Mitt Romney isn’t consistent enough. The result will be the nomination of the ‘maverick’ John McCain as the GOP choice for President of the United States.

If election 2008 has proven anything thus far, it’s that the conservative wing of the Republican Party isn’t as powerful, as important, or as influential as many conservatives once believed. How times have changed since 1980.

Despite a record that includes the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation that gave rise to the disproportionate influence of George Soros and groups like Moveon.org, despite the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill that came within a hair’s breadth of giving amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, to a slew of proposals that would have kept our taxes higher, unfairly burden America with unilateral environmental regulations, subjected Americans to the jurisdiction of international criminal courts, undermined American maritime dominance, etc., McCain is poised to become the standard bearer of Ronald Reagan’s party, and conservatives, plagued by indecision and disunity, are apparently powerless to stop it.

By most conventional standards, Governor Romney is an excellent candidate. But in election 2008, following a Bush presidency that left a bad taste in many conservative mouths, the good is the apparent enemy of the perfect, and many would rather see their party go down in flames and await a phoenix-like conservative rebirth in 2012, than nominate someone less than perfect.

The problem with this strategy of course is two-fold:

If McCain is nominated over the objections of conservatives, it will considerably diminish the power of the conservative movement within the GOP. Moreover, should McCain win the presidency in November without the assistance of conservatives, and indeed over their objections, it will force the entire American political paradigm to the left for the foreseeable future.

More importantly however, is not what such a nomination would do to the GOP, but what it might do to America. In the place of the less than perfect Romney will be the very imperfect John McCain, Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, and the toll upon the Republic could be severe.

McCain is an honorable and decent man, but his willingness to compromise on so many issues, and his indifference to the views of his own party and constituency make him both unpredictable and unaccountable. Though McCain would continue to stand strong on foreign policy and military affairs, domestic policy would undoubtedly take a decidedly non-conservative beating.  If either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were elected, the result could be nothing short of a giant step toward European socialism.

In the famous words of Ronald Reagan, now is another ”time for choosing.” This time the conservative movement must determine whether it remains relevant or not. If so, it must immediately end its fascination with Ron Paul’s noble but uncompetitive campaign on behalf of constitutional puritanism, abandon its support for Governor Huckabee’s positive but futile GOP-Jennings-Bryan-campaign, and marshal its support for Governor Romney in every Super Tuesday state.

If not, it must resign itself to near term political impotence, abdicate the Party leadership to its most liberal wing, and consign the future of the Republic to one of three people that it deeply distrusts.