Jan Brewer succeeded Janet Napolitano to become the 22nd governor of Arizona when Napolitano was appointed Secretary of Homeland Security in 2009. Prior to her service as governor, Brewer served a term and a half as Arizona Secretary of State. She served for thirteen years in the Arizona State Legislature, three years as a state representative and ten years as a state senator. She served as chairwoman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for six years, steering Maricopa County through a serious fiscal crisis and earning the county the reputation of being “one of the two best managed large counties in the nation,” according to Governing Magazine.

Gov. Brewer already has more experience in government than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or Sarah Palin had in 2008. She has more executive experience than any of the candidates on either of the 2008 presidential tickets. Gov. Brewer will have recently turned 68 years old on November 6, 2012. I think you know where I’m going with this.

But why Gov. Jan Brewer for President in 2012, you ask? Two reasons. She is one of the most conservative governors in the nation, lining up with conservative principles across the board. She can unite fiscal/economic, social, and foreign policy/national security conservatives along with common sense independents in the grand Reagan coalition and she can energize the entire Republican base. That’s point number one. Point number two is that she has already demonstrated that she can take on the Obama political machine — and she can win.

Consider it. The Obama administration and leftist forces nationwide have mobilized to oppose Arizona’s immigration law, boycott Arizona, and ultimately, you can be sure, try to defeat Gov. Brewer’s reelection efforts this November. That’s what the left is trying to do, but the American people don’t seem to be down for that. According to a recent Pew poll, just 25%, 1/4 of Americans approve of President Obama’s handling of illegal immigration. Contrast that with the 59%, nearly 2/3 of Americans who approve of Arizona’s new illegal immigration legislation.

President Obama and the united left lost this battle before it even really got off the ground. Gov. Brewer has won. Why wouldn’t we want that kind of passion, that kind of winning strength of conviction at the top of our ticket in 2012? Do you really think milquetoast candidates like Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty can go after Obama so aggressively? If so, why aren’t they?

It’s not just that Gov. Brewer has demonstrated she can win political battles against the national left, though. Turns out she is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. She’s cut over $1 billion from the Arizona state budget and set Arizona back on the path to fiscal solid ground after Napolitano’s big spending. There are 10% fewer public employees in Arizona than when Brewer took office.

She’s even shown the courage to take on popular entitlements, ending Arizona’s version of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), KidsCare, because the state simply couldn’t afford it. Jan Brewer has the intestinal fortitude to take on desperately needed Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid reform, and to sign a repeal of ObamaCare. In fact, she has already committed Arizona to joining the legal fight against ObamaCare when the Arizona Attorney General, Democrat Terry Goddard, refused to do so.

Across the board, Jan Brewer is the kind of common sense conservative we need to present a clear and unequivocal contrast to Barack Obama in 2012.

Barack Obama wants to sign card check into law. Jan Brewer signed a right to work executive order.

Barack Obama has quadrupled the national deficit. Jan Brewer cut more than $1 billion from the Arizona budget.

Barack Obama wants amnesty. Jan Brewer wants secure borders, and has acted in her capacity as chief executive of her border state to crack down on illegal immigration as the federal government, led by Barack Obama, continually refuses to do so.

Barack Obama was too politically correct to celebrate the National Day of Prayer. Jan Brewer blocked state employees from censoring Christmas and Hanukkah. She scrapped the “Holiday Tree” and reinstated the Christmas Tree. She threw out those “candlesticks” and brought back the menorah.

Barack Obama hates the Second Amendment. Jan Brewer has expanded the right to carry in Arizona.

Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion president in history and has, for the first time, achieved the liberal dream of federal funding for abortion through ObamaCare. Jan Brewer has signed legislation to prohibit partial birth abortion, require parental consent for minors seeking abortions, mandate that women seeking abortions are well informed and must wait 24 hours before making a decision, and require doctors to perform surgical abortions.

Barack Obama loves taxes and may even be willing to institute a new, value-added tax (VAT) that would cripple the economy and perpetuate big government spending. Jan Brewer proposed a budget plan that would have cut the state property tax as well as corporate and personal income taxes.

The differences are abundantly clear, and that’s the kind of contrast we’re going to desperately need if we’re going to beat Barack Obama in 2012. We need a candidate like Jan Brewer who doesn’t just talk the conservative talk, but actually walks the conservative walk. We need a candidate that Americans can trust to clean up the mess created by the left. We need a candidate who can criticize and promise to repeal ObamaCare without, for example, the media pointing out that he signed legislation almost identical to ObamaCare into law when he was a state governor.

And let’s not forget the most delicious point: If Brewer were to win the Republican nomination and beat Barack Obama in 2012, Obama will have engineered his own defeat. It was Obama who appointed Janet Napolitano to Homeland Security, where she has done an abysmal job of keeping Americans safe. He got a Homeland Security Secretary who can’t do her job and who only drags the administration down. But we should thank Barry. He gave Arizona a new, tough, brilliant Republican governor, and he may have given us the candidate who will give him a pink slip on behalf of the American people in 2012. Barack Obama is responsible for the rise of Jan Brewer.

In 2012, we need a common sense conservative candidate who can present a clear contrast to Obama and his big government, socialist agenda. We need a common sense conservative who can take on the Obama machine and win. We need Jan Brewer.

Cross-posted to From the Rust Belt.

Socialists, by definition, are the enemies of youth. The Marxist imperative — “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” — exhorts socialists to enslave the young, requiring our hard work and then taking what we earn from our work and giving it to older generations.

Who will pay for insolvent entitlements for the elderly like Social Security and Medicare? We will. Those well over the age of 35 initiated the government takeover of health care, but we will benefit the least from it while paying the most for it (h/t The Two Malcontents). Those over the age of 35 are engaging in massive deficit spending primarily for their own benefit, but we will bear the responsibility of paying that debt back. Congressmen and senators who are far older than 35 are planning to implement the largest tax increase in American history in the dubious pursuit of curbing carbon emissions, but citizens under 35 will pay those taxes and suffer through the job loss created by such stifling taxation.

Democrats at the state and local levels won’t balance their budgets by cutting spending. So what do they do instead? In Pittsburgh, they tax your college tuition to pay pensions, insisting that providing income for the retired is more important than your education. You can bet that a similar tax is coming to a college town near you. Meanwhile, in California, college tuition is going up 32% because of the ineptitude of liberal Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democratic legislature. Here in Ohio, at my own Ohio University, I’m looking forward to a 3.5% tuition increase next year because of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of Gov. Ted Strickland and OU administrators.

People from our generation turned out in record numbers to elect Barack Obama last year and give Democrats huge majorities in both chambers of Congress. Maybe you were one of them. I was, and I’m smart enough to regret it today because I see them using their power to subjugate my future to the insatiable hunger of the state. How many Pittsburgh students do you think helped elect Democratic Mayor Luke Ravenstahl? How many UC students helped elect the legislators responsible for their 32% tuition increase? How many OU students hit the ballot box for Ted Strickland?

If you were duped like I was duped, it’s a forgivable offense. The genius of socialism is that it exploits youthful inexperience and idealism to its own advantage. Socialists make utopian promises of hope and change, of slowing the rise of the oceans and healing the planet, but they never explain to the young people they’re busy mesmerizing that these promises come at a cost. The cost is your freedom and prosperity, yours specifically.

If you were duped, you’re forgiven. But the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. I began this post asking a very simple question: Will we fight or will we surrender? If we turn our heads and ignore the political process next year and in 2012, we surrender. If we get all wrapped up in fads and third parties that aren’t electorally viable, if we declare ourselves Anarchists or Greens or Libertarians, we surrender. If we go back to the ballot box and cast votes for the same Democrats who are waging intergenerational war against us, we surrender.

I, for one, am going to fight. If you want to fight, if you’re not willing to give up your freedom and prosperity in exchange for empty utopian promises, then you should join me. The alternative, the only alternative, is the only existing political opposition — and that is the Republican Party. It’s at a crossroads right now, a time of soul-searching and getting back to basics. Those of us who are under 35 have a historic opportunity to participate, to push for a libertarian Republican Party with a live and let live agenda consistent with our generation’s principles. We can either participate or we can withraw. But remember, withdrawal is surrender and your future, yours, is at stake.

Don’t surrender. Fight. Join the Republican resistance and demand freedom and prosperity for Generations Y and Z. This is your wake-up call.

Cross-posted to From the Rust Belt and featured at Libertarian Republican.

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.’”

He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.

“When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.”

There are many angles from which to attack Reid’s outlandish remarks. Republicans could, for example, point out that Democrats have consistently gone ape every time abortion has been compared to the Holocaust or President Obama has been compared to Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. Now their Senate Majority Leader is turning around and comparing Republicans to those who opposed abolition, racial integration, and women’s suffrage.

Republicans could also point out that we were told the historic election of a black president meant that we were moving toward a post-racial America. Meanwhile, the leaders of the Democratic Party have increasingly exploited America’s racial divisions and sought to portray their political opponents as racists.

But I think the best way to approach this is to point out the obvious, as the Fox News reporters have and as Michelle Malkin (among others) has. The obvious is that Sen. Reid was right: There were those who opposed abolition, racial integration, and women’s suffrage. And they were Democrats. Yes, the best way to approach Sen. Reid’s idiocy is to give him — and the rest of the country — a refresher lesson in American history and the history of the Democratic Party.

Much more beneath the fold…

Let’s rewind to 1856 and the election of James Buchanan, the 15th President of the United States and the last Democrat to hold the office before the outbreak of the Civil War. Maybe Sen. Reid has forgotten that James Buchanan ardently defended the right to own human beings as slaves, and maybe he has forgotten how Democratic President James Buchanan responded to secession:

Following the election of 1860, seven deep South states left the Union, and Buchanan was presented with the final crisis of his administration. In his message to Congress in early December 1860, issued prior to secession, Buchanan showed his sympathy for the South by blaming the sectional crisis on the North’s interference with slavery. He urged northern states to repeal their laws which hampered the return of fugitive slaves. . . .

Once secession began, Buchanan sought to retain the loyalty of the upper South and to avoid a confrontation with the departed states until they found their way back to the Union. He hoped that Congress or the Peace Convention, which assembled in Washington in February 1861, would find a solution to the crisis. He also recommended that a constitutional convention be held to pass amendments protecting slavery in the territories and in slaveholding states. However, nothing came of these compromise efforts.

All emphasis is mine. To briefly recap: When southern states threatened to secede from the Union, Democratic President James Buchanan blamed the northern states for causing the sectional divides and urged those states to make it easier for fugitive slaves to be returned to their masters. It was Democratic President James Buchanan who proposed constitutional amendments to reaffirm the institution of slavery, not only in the southern states but in the territories. It was Democratic President James Buchanan whose sympathy for the south and relative inaction after secession led to the Civil War.

And who led the Union to victory against the secessionist south, while finally securing the abolition of slavery? Oh, that’s right, it was Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States and the first Republican president. Maybe Sen. Reid remembers him from his grade school history lessons.

Fast forward to 1870. The Massachusetts Republican State Convention seated two suffragettes as delegates that year. Two years later, the Republican National Convention expressed openness to women’s suffrage, and in 1878 Republican Sen. A.A. Sargent introduced the 19th Amendment, which would eventually extend suffrage to women. In 1892 women were seated as alternate delegates and a woman spoke before the Republican National Convention both for the first time. The first woman elected to Congress was Montana Republican Jeanette Rankin in 1916. The first woman appointed to the Supreme Court was Sandra Day O’Connor, appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Of course, we know that the 19th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1920. Why? Well, it might surprise Sen. Reid to learn that Democrats in the Senate that he now leads defeated the 19th Amendment not once, but four times. Despite being introduced in 1878, the 19th Amendment didn’t pass the Senate until some 41 years later when Republicans had regained complete control of Congress.

But maybe Democratic President Grover Cleveland, the 22nd and 24th President of the United States, said it best when he wrote in the April 1905 edition of Ladies’ Home Journal:

Sensible and responsible women do not want to vote. The relative positions to be assumed by man and woman in the working out of our civilization were assigned long ago by a higher intelligence.

We could go on. We could discuss William Jennings Bryan, who is well known for starting the Democratic Party on its march toward socialism but who is lesser known for blocking the Democratic National Convention from adopting a resolution opposing the Ku Klux Klan in 1924. We could point out that the Democratic Party did nothing to reverse its historic opposition to liberty and justice for African Americans until Franklin D. Roosevelt realized they could be politically useful.

We could also point out that the man who tried to use the filibuster to block civil rights was Strom Thurmond, originally a Democrat. We could even point out that while the Democratic Party boasts about electing the first black president, it is quiet about placing a former Klansman — West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd — third in line for the presidency by electing him the president pro tempore of the Senate.

We could point out so much more, but we’ve already made our point. The point is that while Harry Reid may want to lump his political opponents in with the worst figures of American history, the truth is that it was his own party — the Democratic Party — that resisted abolition, resisted racial integration, and resisted women’s suffrage. But we shouldn’t be angry that the Senate Majority Leader has slandered us. We should thank Sen. Reid for giving us the opportunity to give the American people a history lesson on slavery, segregation, sexism, those in the Democratic Party who supported those evils, and those in the Republican Party who resisted them.

Cross-posted to From the Rust Belt.

The computerized voting machines used by many voters in the 23rd district had a computer virus – tainting the results, not just from those machines known to have been infected, but casting doubt on the accuracy of counts retrieved from any of the machines.

Cathleen Rogers, the Democratic Elections Commissioner in Hamilton County stated that they discovered a problem with their voting machines the week prior to the election and that the “virus” was fixed by a Technical Support representatives from Dominion, the manufacturer. . . . None of the machines (from the same manufacturer) used in the other counties within the 23rd district were looked at nor were they recertified after the “reprogramming” that occurred in Hamilton County.

As is pointed out in the article, this virus debacle calls into question all of the NY-23 election results. It is simply unbelievable that a virus was found in Hamilton County voting machines one week before the special election and none of the other machines in the district were examined. Who really won in NY-23, and did the virus tamper with the vote count?

Last and most pertinent question: Where did the virus come from? Were there any, erm, community organizers near the voting machines prior to the election?

Cross-posted to my personal blog: Nate, Uncensored.

First up is news that the New York Times, clearly desperate for readers, is offering any college professor who makes the Times required reading in his or her syllabus a free subscription. In case the implications aren’t abundantly clear — I know it’s early — let me spell it out for you. The Times is going to let professors have a subscription to their newspaper for free if they make you pay for it. I would call for a student boycott of the New York Times, but clearly none of us are reading it anyway or they wouldn’t have hatched this scheme.

Next up is news out of Pittsburgh that is sure to boil your morning oatmeal. Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is proposing a “Fair Share Tax” that would levy a 1% tax on college tuition (h/t Instapundit). In his not-so-humble opinion, students just aren’t paying their fair share for city services. Mary Hines, president of the Pittsburgh Council on Higher Education and president of Carlow University, disagrees. She points out that students already pay income and property taxes in Pittsburgh. But of course that’s not enough for Ravenstahl. When are there really enough taxes for any liberal?

If this “Fair Share Tax” passes muster in Pittsburgh, look for it to come to a college town near you. I’m sure the corruptocrats in the Athens County Democratic Party will be chomping at the bit to levy a similar tax once they hear the news. Just remember, my fellow matriculants: You do have options. Republicans are for lower taxes and, unless they’re RINOs, aren’t likely to tax your tuition. These folks who want to levy taxes on your tuition are counting on you to keep voting for hopeandchange (TM) at the ballot box.

Last but certainly not least, in this edition of What Were They Smoking and Where Can I Find Some?, we explore what kind of hard drugs University of California regents must have been on when they thought they would quietly get away with increasing tuition by 32%. Are they familiar with the long tradition of student protest at California colleges and universities? But UC students aren’t going quietly into that good night; they’re raging, raging against the dying of their bank accounts. And good for them. But guys, don’t just blame the regents. Your far left state government and its budget mismanagement, that’s the real culprit.

All of this begs the question: Leftist assault on higher education, or just putting the liberal in the liberal arts?

Cross-posted to my personal blog: Nate, Uncensored.

We can do that by supporting a libertarian, populist revision of DOMA — by introducing a Let the People Decide Act of 2010.

Here’s how it would work. The full faith and credit clause that prevents same-sex marriages from being forcibly exported to other states would be left completely intact. The clause that excludes same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships from federal rights and benefits would be repealed if and only if voters within a state approve some version of same-sex unions through ballot issues.

More beneath the fold…

On a partisan strategic level, a Let the People Decide Act would effectively beat Democrats to the punch and allow Republicans to reach out to libertarian and conservative gays and lesbians, as well as social moderates, without betraying the base. It would level the playing field, allowing both proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage to make their case directly to voters and then letting voters make the final decision. A Let the People Decide Act would effectively remove this issue from the Democratic campaign arsenal.

Within the party, it would allow the GOP to reclaim the mantle of the Big Tent by appealing to libertarians, conservatives, and moderates. What’s the appeal for opponents of same-sex marriage, you ask? In order for states to secure federal rights and benefits for same-sex unions, they would have to receive voter consent rather than bypassing voters through judicial activism or liberal legislatures beholden to special interests. A Let the People Decide Act would force states like Massachusetts to finally seek voter approval of same-sex unions.

While this would carry some risk for opponents of same-sex marriage, it must be remembered that in every state that has presented same-sex marriage to voters through the ballot it has been rejected. This most recently includes socially moderate Maine. While proponents of same-sex marriage would stand to potentially gain from a Let the People Decide Act, so would opponents in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and elsewhere. Whatever the outcome, at least both sides would have to be satisfied with the fact that voters — not judicial activists or legislators — made the decision.

On an ideological level, a Let the People Decide Act meshes well with the libertarian strain within the Republican Party. It would make a great addition to a platform that emphasizes freedom first and state sovereignty, and it would emphasize the federal government’s Tenth Amendment responsibility to place the power to decide this issue directly in the hands of the states and the people. This proposal would be federalist and libertarian at its core, emphasizing a Republican commitment to respecting the constitution.

There is valid disagreement within the Republican Party and among the people of the fifty states about the proper degree of recognition for same-sex marriage. The best way to iron out those disagreements and reach consensus is to encourage vigorous debate among voters at the state level. Let’s demand the right of the American people to express their values on this contentious issue. Let the People Decide.

Cross-posted to my personal blog: Nate, Uncensored.

While finding out where Palin stands on policy is important, I think there are other ways one can discern whether or not she is qualified to lead our nation. Over a year ago, Palin gave her speech at the Republican National Convention as the GOP vice presidential candidate. I think now is the appropriate time to look back on that speech and see just how prescient Palin’s claims about the future of America under an Obama administration have turned out to be.

More beneath the fold…

Sarah Palin on September 3, 2008:

Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And, since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves: I guess, I guess a small town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.

The situation today: Over a year ago, Sarah Palin highlighted in general that she was the only candidate in the election who actually had executive experience. Specifically, she questioned the leadership ability of a man whose longest job title was not state senator or U.S. senator, but community organizer. More than a year later, has Barack Obama proven that he is ready to lead?

The clear answer is no. Sarah Palin was right. He has not led our economy into recovery, as unemployment climbs to 10% and the so-called stimulus has only created jobs in congressional districts that don’t exist. He has not made our country more fiscally sound, as the bailouts have only positioned the country for a repeat of our previous crisis and out of control spending has brought our deficit to $12 trillion. Nor has he led on health care reform, the supposed centerpiece of his domestic agenda. Rather, he has played basketball and gone golfing while abdicating the job voters gave him to do to the most radical Speaker of the House in history and a weak-kneed Senate Majority Leader.

On foreign policy, his inability to lead is even more grave. Iran and North Korea remain obstinate. He spits in the faces of veterans who served in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam as he shows the world a weaker kinder, gentler president who bows to emperors and dictators. He refuses to acknowledge an ongoing war on terrorism, and when that war once again returns to his country via a radical Muslim army psychiatrist he refuses to accept responsibility for the first terrorist attack on American soil since September 11, 2001. He is giving the 9/11 mastermind a civilian trial and all of the risks that come with it. But maybe most seriously, his dithering on Afghanistan threatens greater harm to our troops and ultimately the victory of a resurgent Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Sarah Palin was right: Barack Obama is not ready to lead.

Sarah Palin on September 3, 2008:

I might add, I might add that in small towns we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they’re listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening. No, we tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.

The situation today: Sarah Palin pointed out that Barack Obama didn’t really respect working men and women; if anything, he looked down on them with a condescending sense of pity. In Obama’s worldview, working Americans don’t need freedom; they need government.

This is so clearly true today. The government take-over of the health care industry is really a statement that Americans need government to manage their health. Rather than focusing on free-market solutions that would give Americans more choices, the Obamacrats would rather mete out health care as they see fit. They know what’s best for you. In the process, they’ll tax you and tax you again. They’ll even put a tax on soda and juice drinks to try to control your behavior.

And by the way, because you’re too stupid to know what’s going on, they’ll promote ideas like the “fairness doctrine” to regulate what is and is not said on television and radio, and “net neutrality” to introduce the greatest increase in internet regulation in American history. But don’t worry, all the taxes and regulations — they’re just doing what’s best for you, because you can’t be trusted to do it yourself.

Sarah Palin was right: Barack Obama has no respect for working Americans. He sees them as lesser human beings who need government to take care of them.

Sarah Palin on September 3, 2008:

Our opponents say again and again that drilling will not solve all of America’s energy problems, as if we didn’t know that already. But the fact, the fact that drilling though won’t solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all. Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we’re going to lay more pipelines, and build more nuclear plants, and create jobs with clean coal, and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.

We need, we need American sources of resources, we need American energy brought to you by American ingenuity and produced by American workers.

The situation today: As Sarah Palin predicted, Barack Obama has not moved forward on energy independence. His “climate change” proposals have virtually nothing to do with energy independence; they’re more about imposing artificial government restrictions on business, and the largest tax increase in American history. We’re still not drilling for more domestic oil or natural gas. We haven’t built nuclear power plants. We’re not doing anything with clean coal (in fact, cap-and-tax will destroy the coal industry). There has been no progress on alternative energy sources like solar, wind, and geothermal.

By ignoring energy independence, Obamacrats have ignored a legitimate economic and national security issue in which the government should have become involved through incentivizing leadership and innovation. The Obama administration has ignored what could have been the single largest job stimulus program we could have achieved, an energy independence stimulus that would have created jobs, reduced our trade deficit, and made us more secure and less reliant on hostile foreign powers.

Sarah Palin was right: Barack Obama has done “nothing at all” on energy independence. We are still as dependent as ever on foreign sources of energy — to the detriment of our workers, to our domestic economy, to our trade deficit, and to our national security.

Sarah Palin on September 3, 2008:

Now I’ve noticed a pattern with our opponent, and maybe you have too. We’ve all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers, and there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs, but not a single major law or not even a reform, not even in the state senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word victory except when he’s talking about his own campaign.

But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot — when that happens, what exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer, the answer is to make government bigger, and take more of your money, and give you more orders from Washington, and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world.

America needs more energy; our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay; he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights.

Government is too big; he wants to grow it. Congress spends too much money; he promises more. Taxes are too high, and he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific: The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, and raise payroll taxes, and raise investment income taxes, and raise the death tax, and raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. . . .

Here’s how I look at the choice Americans face in this election: In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers, and then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change. They are the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners or on self-designed presidential seals. . . .

The situation today: Nearing the end of her speech, Sarah Palin offered what was perhaps the most sweeping indictment that came out of the convention of what America would look like under an Obama administration. She worried about a man who would be Campaigner-in-Chief rather than Commander-in-Chief, a man with radical disdain for our military and radical views on foreign policy, and a man who epitomized tax-and-spend liberalism. She worried about a man who was manipulating change to promote his career, because he had no career in which he had promoted change.

Was she wrong? Was she wrong about any of it?

There are many ways to measure the qualifications of a political candidate or potential candidate. One way is to look at his or her policy views, and over the past few days Sarah Palin has been laying out what she calls “common sense conservative” solutions to American problems. She is leaving little doubt that she knows what America needs to do to restore domestic prosperity and restrengthen our much weakened position in the world.

But there is another way to measure the qualifications of a candidate, and that is by measuring his or her judgment. Does the person seeking your support show the good judgment that is necessary to lead? More than a year ago, Sarah Palin used her judgment to offer a glimpse into Obama’s America. That brief glimpse during the Republican National Convention now seems as though Palin was looking through a window to the future. If she had the good judgment to know exactly what America would look like under President Barack Obama, why would she not have good enough judgment to lead us into a better, more prosperous, and more secure future?

I haven’t decided who I will support in 2012 yet; for Pete’s sake, we don’t even know who’s running. What I do know is that if Sarah Palin runs in 2012 and if her opponents and their supporters try to cast her as too inexperienced to lead, we need to remember that she had the good judgment to know that Barack Obama could not lead and the guts to say so. Maybe, just maybe, we should trust that good judgment to run the GOP presidential campaign in 2012 and, more importantly, the White House in 2013.

Cross-posted to my personal blog: Nate, Uncensored.

Clue #1: In the run-up to her inevitable endorsement of NY-23′s lying leftist Bill Owens, Dede Scozzafava was told by text message that this Democratic president was trying to get in touch with her. Dede declined to return his calls.

Clue #2: Following the passage of PelosiCare by just five votes in the House of Representatives, this Democratic president went to the Senate and told Democratic senators that attacks by so-called “teabaggers” (a derogatory term for conservative Tea Party activists) meant that the Democratic majority was actually winning. He urged Senate Democrats to make history and pass PelosiCare right away.

Find out just who this Democratic president is beneath the fold…

If you guessed sitting President Barack Obama — I’m sorry, that’s incorrect. You don’t win the prize (er, there aren’t any prizes really). If you guessed former two term Democratic President Bill Clinton, you are a winner! Yes, it was Bill Clinton who was dispatched to get the endorsement of Dede Scozzafava and it was also Slick Willy who riled up Senate Democrats by taking gratuitous shots at the conservative grassroots. Is this some new Obama stimulus project, putting former Democratic presidents back to work? Maybe he can expand the project to Democratic presidential failures. Y’know, send Michael Dukakis and Geraldine Ferraro to lobby against the Stupak amendment, dispatch Al Gore to tell Congress how important cap-and-tax is, and send John Kerry to all the talk shows to explain to the American people why President Obama was for victory in Afghanistan before he was against it. Oh, and he should totally send Jimmy Carter to the Middle East to explain to the Israelis why they’re just like the Nazis.

Dear Lord, that was a gratuitous amount of snark, now wasn’t it?

Putting on my serious face, one can’t help but see the irony here. It was Bill and Hill who told us during the ’08 Democratic primaries that Barack Obama was too inexperienced to govern. They explained that he didn’t have enough experience in Washington to take on the big political battles that are necessary to effectively govern, and that he simply wouldn’t be taken seriously. He could promise change all he wanted, but only the Clintons with their vast Washington experience could deliver. Remember that? I thought you might. Obama said it was nonsense. Of course he could deliver on his promises of change, if only people had enough hope (which is also, by the way, how you bring fairy tale creatures back to life).

It turns out the Clintons were right. President Obama is the bumbling charlatan behind the curtain, and Bill Clinton is the giant talking head proclaiming himself the Great and Powerful Oz. Apparently Obama can’t really give Harry Reid a brain, or Nancy Pelosi a heart, and he certainly can’t muster the courage to win in Afghanistan. The only thing he probably can do is help Congressional Dems click their ruby red slippers together and send them home next year. I wonder what all those Democrats think of the ObaMagic now? Apparently, some of them are not pleased.

So when 2012 rolls around and after four years of failure Obama swears he can govern, remind your friends and neighbors that during the decisive political battles of 2009 he was just the impotent man behind the curtain. He needed Bill Clinton twice in as many weeks for the smoke and mirrors.

Cross-posted to my personal blog: Nate, Uncensored.

Scozzafava’s black Nokia phone vibrated nonstop. She rarely picked it up, except for family or close friends. She called the publisher of the Watertown Daily Times to convey her private support for Owens. She received a text informing her that former president Bill Clinton was trying to reach her, but she wasn’t returning any messages.

The emphasis is mine. Leaving aside the unbelievable notion that Scozzafava wouldn’t have returned a message from a former president, take that in for a minute. Bill Clinton was trying to reach her.

The former president of the United States, former leader of the free world, Democratic superstar, almost First Gentleman Bill Clinton was reaching out to Scozzafava for an Owens endorsement.

Could it be that the Obamacrats knew they were going to lose in Virginia, feared they were going to lose in New Jersey, and were desperate for some face-saving victory? Fearing that if they lost all three elections the media might turn on them, Democrats dispatched a former president for an assemblywoman’s endorsement so the media would cling to the meme that Republicans were killing the party by pushing out “moderates” when we couldn’t win with conservatives.

We can never prove that President Obama was concerned about last Tuesday’s election. What Scozzafava has revealed is that at least one Democratic president was concerned. Don’t let them tell you that last Tuesday didn’t matter, and don’t let them tell you that their desperate grab for NY-23 means a conservative defeat. Hoffman and his supporters made Bill Clinton beg for an endorsement from a woman who wouldn’t even return his calls. If that kind of humiliation of a former Democratic president is their “victory,” let them have it.

Cross-posted to my personal blog: Nate, Uncensored.

He was a big guy with a somewhat intimidating presence, the kind of guy you wouldn’t want to run into in a dark alley (or a bright alley, for that matter) if you had somehow ended up on his bad side. He also struck me as a no-nonsense kind of guy. No excuses. You succeed or you fail, and if you fail you pick yourself up again — but you don’t make excuses. You own your life, your triumphs and your mistakes, and you either work to better it or you don’t.

But it was also pretty clear that he was a good guy, a man with a deep sense of loyalty. That sense of loyalty was obvious by the way he interacted with his family and by the way they interacted with him. Here was a real father in an age when real fatherhood is rare, when men are so often inclined to cede their responsibilities to the mothers of their children, to the public educational system, and to other government programs. Not this guy. With him, you got the impression that he would be just as willing to die for his family as he was willing to die for his country as a Marine.

More beneath the fold…

For as long as I live, I think my friend’s father will shape the impression that I have of the Marine Corps. His commitment to personal responsibility and loyalty is also reflected in his children. My friend, his oldest son, is among the most loyal friends I have ever had. He even stays loyal to friends who may not deserve it. He likes to have a good time — one of the things we definitely have in common — but when your nose is to the grindstone and you need to lean on somebody for support, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a better friend than he is.

Like a lot of others, my friend didn’t do so well in his freshman year of college and at least for now he’s decided that college isn’t for him. But he didn’t go home and cry about it, sulking in any mistakes he might have made while relying on his parents for support. He went home and went straight to work, and he worked hard. He became a supervisor at the restaurant he worked at, and now he’s moved on to a better job with better pay and greater opportunities for career advancement. I’m proud of him, and I’m sure his dad is proud of him too, because he took responsibility for his life and decided to make something out of it.

That’s who the Marines are to me. They’re the ones on the front lines because they know that somebody has to be responsible for defending our country, and they’re willing to take on that great responsibility. They take on that responsibility because they have an abiding loyalty to their friends, their families, their freedom, their country, and their God.

Responsibility and loyalty are the two qualities that I have seen in the only Marine Corps family that I know. It just so happens that responsibility and loyalty are two values sorely lacking in our culture today. Look at the banks, disloyal to their customers and to the national economy but taking no responsibility for their actions. Instead they want bailouts. Meanwhile the government spends us toward the real possibility of bankruptcy, all in the name of taking responsibility where others in the private sector should. The list goes on and on. Irresponsibility and disloyalty permeate every aspect of our culture.

234 years later, maybe all of us can learn something from the Marine Corps. Maybe we can learn from them what America is really supposed to be about.

What about you? What experiences have you had with the Marine Corps that have shaped your perspective on their service and your views on what America means through the eyes of a Marine? Cassandra at Villainous Company has a breathtaking perspective from a Marine wife. Go read the whole thing. If you know a Marine or someone with a loved one in the Marine Corps, be sure to thank them for their service and dedication to our country today.

Cross-posted to my personal blog: Nate, Uncensored.