Though the left considers "Republican" and "conservative" synonymous, those terms have become increasingly distinct since the success of the 1994 Contract With America. It was the last time that conservative principles governed GOP politics.

 

More recently, majorities of Republicans voted to override President Bush’s veto of the farm bill, and GOP Senators and Congressmen showed no aversion to earmarks and pork during their years in the majority. President Bush himself has disappointed conservatives with his reluctance to halt illegal immigration and his enthusiasm for the prescription drug program. Conservative voices in the GOP are few, and conservative presidential candidates lost to "moderate" John McCain, who seems sympathetic to at least 50% of the liberal agenda, and was arguably the MSM’s favorite Republican until he decided to actually oppose a Democrat in a national election.

To avail themselves of that characterization, candidates would have to endorse a set of conservative principles, and define their political beliefs. Many conservatives have identified such principles, from Ronald Reagan and former house speaker Newt Gingrich to radio talk show hosts Dennis Prager and Sean Hannity. Certainly such a list would include a strong national defense, energetic prosecution of the war on terror, reducing the size of government and the burden of excessive regulation, lowering taxes, breaking the teachers’ unions’ hammerlock on public education, eliminating welfare, ending judicial activism and legislating from the bench, protecting the sanctity of life, and achieving energy independence.

The most generous support for candidates and campaigns always comes from the ideological extremes of either party. True believers contribute to causes close to their hearts, moderates and middle-of-the-roaders have little at stake ideologically. Certainly this is true of the Democrats, whose campaigns find the greatest financial bounty from the extreme Left, typified by the millions George Soros pours into losing presidential campaigns. The same would be true on the Right, where conservative Republicans would claim the lion’s share of conservative generosity.

This would give other Republicans, by definition the less conservative Republicans, a choice–shun the conservatives or join them. But Republicans who repudiate conservatives would be admitting that they have little in common with the base, and effectively cut themselves off from that source of campaign funds. There is no money from the middle, and they certainly could not expect any from the Left.

Political prognosticators predict massive losses for congressional Republicans in November, which makes GOP candidates timid and leads some to abandon conservative principle. They calculate that appearing less conservative will make them less objectionable, possibly swayed by polls that show voters prefer the generic Democrat candidate for congress to the Republican by double digits.

But Republicans have failed to stand up for conservative principles. They behaved as Democrats did, and were voted out in 2006. When they lost the majority, they became even more timid, and thus further lost their identities as conservatives. As they sidle to the left, renegade Republicans alienate their base, and they don’t increase their appeal to the other side. Democrats won’t vote for Republicans who abandon their principles over Democrats who cling to theirs. The parties vote for candidates who stand for the party principles.

Conservative Republicans won’t be a majority in the new congress, but the GOP has little chance of regaining the majority anyway. And even if Republicans do take back one or both houses of congress, what does that achieve for conservative voters? We gain nothing by electing Republicans who aren’t conservative. Even a minority of conservative Republicans can begin to rebuild the party based on conservative principles.

The Democrats, despite a desperate primary battle, are riding high in the polls, and not because they have rushed to the middle. The more moderate of their two presidential contenders, the one with the greater experience, pedigree and range of political allies, lost to a rival who represents the extreme base of the Democrat party. Democrats in Congress happily cater to their far Left base. They did not reach this position by trying to appear more moderate.

Much has been made of John McCain’s short temper, and how it may affect his chances in November. Most recently, Senate majority leader Harry Reid showed admirable restraint and circumspection when he told a group of broadcast reporters that he would not make McCain’s temper an issue in the campaign. Reid has been reading Richard Nixon’s play book. Whenever Nixon wanted to savage a political rival, he would say something like, "I will not say, as others have, that Senator X is a drunk, a liar and a reprobate." That way, he got credit for honorable conduct while simultaneously dragging his opponent through the mud.

But I digress. McCain’s temper is the topic, and as a conservative who mistrusts McCain on most conservative issues, I can honestly say that a hair trigger temper is one quality that serves him well.

That we live in a dangerous world is a fact recognized by everyone but those without cable and senior members of the Obama campaign. All over the world, young Muslim men who are underemployed and unable to get dates fall under the influence of unholy men who tell them that both problems can be solved by the rite of self-detonation. Rogue states run by totalitarian dwarves (in the case of North Korea), poorly dressed Hitler impersonators (in the case of Iran), or dictators who gorge themselves on banana split republics (in the case of Venezuela) are arming themselves and their client states with the latest weaponry. That weaponry comes from familiar foes from the Cold War, who now deny they lost that conflict, and want a rematch. The poor sap who punches the Oval Office clock next January 20^th is going to be at DefCon Double Digits for the next four years.

For much of recent history, our enemies could rely on the United States acting quite predictably when attacked. Marine barracks in Beirut–withdraw. Mogadishu ambush–pull out. First attack on World Trade Center–make a couple of arrests. Attack American embassies–act indignant at the UN. Blow a hole in the Cole–wave our fists in the air.

The exceptions came under Presidents named Bush. Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait–the United States builds a coalition and goes to war. Al Qaeda attacks the WTC and Pentagon–the United States invades Afghanistan to track down the culprits. Saddam Hussein kicks out weapons inspectors–the United States builds another coalition and goes to war.

I realize that the Bush wars are controversial and, in the case of the war in Iraq, no longer widely supported (although it was in the beginning). The point is that even with the "cowboy" Bush in office, both wars had the support of an overwhelming majority of Congress and the American people, at least initially. The road to war followed the required course of Congressional approval and international acquiescence. Our enemies, even the dim ones of the Hussein family, knew that certain procedures would be followed before war was declared. Saddam even thought his oil-for-food payoffs to Security Council members would provide a roadblock to American reaction.

If Obama ends up President, our enemies will be greatly assured (as Hamas leaders have already indicated) that their terrorist activities will be ignored if not tolerated. Obama has already said he would "talk" with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with no preconditions. This is a state leader who is supplying weapons and terrorists to a war where Americans are being killed daily. Our enemies have nothing to fear from Obama.

But what if we had a real hot-head in the White House? What if the guy carrying the football was short-tempered, volatile, prone to strike back reflexively? What if all those months of vanilla-flavored campaign speeches about coming together, changing the tone, and reaching across the aisle had built up a Vesuvius of fury, just looking for an excuse to erupt? What if no one could really be sure if all those years of abuse in a North Vietnamese concentration camp had short-circuited his fail-safe switches and left him a little less able to absorb even the slightest provocation?

That is exactly the type of President we need at this critical moment. I want our enemies--whether they’re assembling a roadside bomb on a prayer rug, manipulating the price of premium unleaded by nationalizing their petroleum industries, or plotting our demise under some minaret in Red Square–I want our enemies to be totally unsure what stimulus will make our President snap. I don’t want our enemies to calculate a proportional response, or have the time to send terrorist-made electronic press kits to the MSM, or buy the votes of a few dips in the United Nations. I want them to know that an act of sabotage, an assassination attempt, an attack on Americans anywhere in the world could bring a shrug, a denunciation, or a rain of nuclear warheads, all depending on what kind of mood the President is in when he gets the news. I want our enemies to know that the finger on the trigger is unpredictable, excitable, and barely under control.

In fact, it would also give me great satisfaction if the Democrats in Congress had the same uneasy feeling.

As the hard-fought primary season staggers to a close, an evident consensus among Democrats is that Barack Obama will be their nominee. This is commendable, at least from the perspective of consistency. For many years, Democrats have defended quotas, set-asides and affirmative action as necessary to "level the playing floor" for minorities, whether such programs apply to opportunities in education, employment or government contracts. Now the Democrats have put their nominee where their mouths are–they will send an affirmative action candidate into the presidential fray.

The rationale of affirmative action programs is that without them, members of certain minorities would be unable to compete with others. The unexpressed implication is that these same individuals are inferior to those with whom they compete.

Never mind that affirmative action and quotas have lowered the value of minority achievements in every field of endeavor in which they apply. This is a natural result any time when educational degrees, prestigious jobs and lucrative contracts are awarded upon any other criterion than merit. As Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas stated in his biography, My Grandfather’s Son, he always felt that the years of hard work that he put into his education and his Yale law degree were discounted by whites who suspected that his achievement was a result of affirmative action.

By the same token, affirmative action programs obviously lower the overall quality of the groups to which they apply. When a fraction of any group is admitted for reasons other than merit and ability, the overall quality of that group suffers. Only when merit is the sole criterion for admission can quality standards be maintained at their highest level.

The Democrats’ two top contenders were both representatives of groups that have enjoyed the benefits of affirmative action programs. Barack Obama is black and Hillary Clinton is a woman. Arguably, Hillary Clinton had more experience and greater qualifications for the presidency, but her party seems to prefer her less-qualified opponent.

If nominated in August, Barack Obama will be one of the least qualified or experienced candidates from a major party ever to run for president. He served eight years in the Illinois state senate, and has served a little more than half a term as a United States Senator. That amounts to about three years in national office. His Democrat rival, Hillary Clinton, has been twice elected to the Senate, and prior to that was first lady during Bill Clinton’s two presidential terms, as well as his four terms as governor of Arkansas. For comparison, the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, was a decorated hero during the Vietnam war, and has served two terms as a congressman, and is currently in his fourth term as a United States Senator.

But Barack Obama clearly meets the minimum requirements as a presidential candidate, he is immensely popular with a majority of Democrats, and in the party of affirmative action, those qualities and his minority status have placed him in the lead for the nomination. For those who doubt the role of race in Obama’s rise, perhaps they could name a white male with similar qualifications who topped the ticket for a major party in recent memory. Obama is often compared to President Kennedy. When Kennedy took office, he did so as a decorated war hero, and with the national experience of three terms as a congressman and two terms as a United States Senator.

Thus, the Democrats seem determined to enter the 2008 presidential election, one in which they enjoy significant advantages in the mood of the electorate, with a marginally qualified candidate chosen as much for his race as his qualifications. It is certainly possible that a majority of voters will agree with the Democrats, that the symbolism of electing a black president supersedes the requirement for experience and demonstrated ability. But polls consistently show that most Americans do not favor quotas or set-asides, whether it comes to where their kids go to school, who gets a good job or what company wins a government contract. The majority of Americans simply want to see merit rewarded, because that is how excellence is attained.

Over the decades, the length of this rope-a-dope has varied – its measurement depending upon the candidate’s emotional stability (or instability), practical knowledge and know-how. No contender escapes its grip, and none are immune to the burns they cause, because they’re cabled with the same callous tension: blatant criticism from the opposition, party dissension, the digging up of dark secrets and mischief, unscrupulous media hounds, and self-inflicted wounds – to name a few.

It has been just so for Obama, and more so. From the start, this tadpole imagined himself more than a presidential contender; he presented himself as the prince of the people – and princes expect to be coddled and crowned.

Obama seemed to forget that America is not a monarchy, and monarchies are forbidden under the laws of the Republic on which we stand. He was surprised when his regal attitude became an immediate target for core conservatives and straight-thinking democrats to take aim at.

No one was surprised when those marksmen were accused of being whacked-out hate mongers. But that, like the sun rising every morning, was to be expected.

What the accusers never considered is the one unbendable requirement for the office of the President: hardcore qualifications.

Neither Obama nor his hangers-on expected that qualifications would be part of his equation. He prances on with the stilted belief that his over-hyped popularity and his long-winded hyperbole will give him a miss on this condition.

Obama survived most of the muggings thanks to the liberal MSM’s return fire of frayed rhetoric to confuse viewers, listeners, critics, and primary voters. There were also the swarms of his disciples who threw their reputations in his path to take the bullet. That worked for a while. But despite his trainloads of luck, Obama’s support and luck are petering out.

Closer scrutiny of B. Hussein Obama has now revealed the following:

- His leadership skills and experience are deficient.

- His credibility is anemic.

- His lemonade-stand approach to national defense and security, on Iran, on the war on terror in general, on the state of the economy, and on holding down taxes, etc., etc., is a shaggy dog.

The so-called inspiration for his list of dreamy changes has shrunk due to his contradictory statements and failure in being forthcoming about his personal history with a lunatic posing as a pastor.

Following that “pastor’s” initial attacks on America, Obama’s rationalization and justification of that man’s immoralities produced ripples and then waves of doubt and mistrust over his eligibility for the White House.

The final blow came in April. The pastor reemerged and appeared at the National Press Club during which he continued to profane this country. With that, the curtain is ringing down on Obama’s act.

The ground where the senator from Illinois stands was always too unstable for him to take a run at the Presidency. He proved it with his response of being both outraged and saddened after the pastor’s Press Club appearance. (In reality, you can be livid or sad, not both simultaneously – unless you’re one “slick Willie.”)

Obama made the run anyway, which is his right. To everyone’s amazement he boosted himself to center-stage but with silky speechifying. His rallies boggled the mind. They remind me of Verdi operas: an eye and ear-full, energetic, colorful – but still only opera.

Luck and being a talented conversationalist has brought him this far. But luck and storytelling is short-lived. An important point is no degree of earnestness on Obama’s part has convinced conservatives and far-sighted democrats that he can ever make credible the changes he proposes, though some of those slogans might actually look nice on a throw pillow.

As for the political noose: It’s not being yanked on by anyone across the Senate aisle, or by any of those “nasty” conservative talk radio pundits, or even by the Clinton camp. The person with one hand on the political noose and the other on the trapdoor mechanism is none other than a hangman in the prince’s royal retinue:

I am not a political strategist or campaign operative. But some mystifying moves by John McCain in this marathon campaign are coming into clearer focus, and could be effective calculated politics.

John McCain severely criticized North Carolina GOP chairman Linda Daves for an ad that linked two Democrat gubernatorial candidates who endorsed Barack Obama to the traitorous sermons of Reverend Wright. John McCain has been quoted as saying Hillary Clinton would make a good president. John McCain has largely refused to attack or criticize either of the Democrats who are vying for the chance to run against him. John McCain has refused to mollify conservatives in his own party by offering any indication that he’s leaning toward any of his conservative primary opponents.

The Democrats are headed for a bitter primary showdown, whoever prevails. McCain need do nothing to stir the pot on that score. But if Obama gets the nomination, voters in Florida and Michigan may feel disenfranchised, and Hillary stalwarts as well as recent Clinton converts will feel cheated. If it’s Clinton at the top of the ticket, Obama’s supporters will feel like the nomination was stolen, and none will feel this more sharply than black Democrat voters.

McCain, whose appeal to the moderates and independents is greater than any Republican since Reagan, could then name a running mate who might appeal to the disaffected in the other party. To accomplish this goal, McCain should choose for his running mate a conservative black Republican, such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Maryland’s ex-lieutenant governor Michael Steele or Ohio’s ex-treasurer and secretary of state Ken Blackwell.

If Obama is the nominee, a black running mate for McCain reduces Obama’s novelty, gives race-priority voters an alternative, and demonstrates that, contrary to popular opinion, there really are black conservatives.

If Hillary is the nominee, then black Democrat voters will have the choice of voting for a black Republican or the white Democrat who stole the nomination from their own candidate. Of course, Hillary might try to innoculate herself from the backlash by choosing her own black running mate or even wooing Obama himself, but neither would make up for taking the nomination from Obama in the minds of his supporters.

A black conservative would bolster McCain’s ties to the large percentage of conservatives who still don’t trust him, while also burnishing his popularity with moderates of both parties.

A black conservative on the presidential ticket would also show that the black vote is not a solid bloc, that attitudes and issues differ as widely among black voters as among any other group. And it might remind voters that the last Republican administration had two Secretaries of State, both black. Colin Powell and Concoleezza Rice have proven that opportunity for blacks exist in both parties.

Recent shifts in momentum toward Hillary portend a combative end to the Democrats’ primary season. The Democrats will be lucky if the only result is hard feelings. By choosing a conservative black running mate, McCain could attract the disaffected, the moderates, and the conservatives. This year, those groups constitute a clear majority.