After much thought and consideration, I have decided to leave RedState. I think it’s right to explain why.

In a Nov. 26 post, Erick listed some basic principles about RedState. The first of which was “you must be pro-life to write on our front page.” Whether this was commonly known or not, it was news to me.

Before I go any further, I should get a couple of things out of the way. First as to my position on abortion; although I am strongly opposed to late term or partial birth abortion, I do not believe that a single cell is the same as a human being and therefore I do not fit the common definition of pro-life. Second, I am fully aware that this restriction applies only to front page writers, and since I am not a front page writer it has no practical effect on me. And third, I do not dispute the right of the creators of RedState to put in place any rules that they feel are appropriate.

Even though I could continue to write my diary at RedState with no restrictions, I find the pro-life rule disturbing none the less. I find this rule troubling for two reasons, one practical and one personal.

On a practical level, I believe that a requirement for this level of ideological purity among the most senior levels of RedState is politically unwise. It is said that conservatism is a three legged stool consisting of social conservatives, economic conservatives and national security conservatives. The success of the conservative movement has depended on unifying these three strands.

If each of the three parts of the movement begin to impose exclusionary litmus tests, conservatism as a cohesive movement can not survive.

A national security conservative litmus test would exclude Sen. Sam Brownback who said “I do not believe that sending more troops to Iraq is the answer. Iraq requires a political rather than a military solution.”

An economic conservative litmus test would exclude Governor Mike Huckabee, who was described by the club for growth as having “profoundly anti-growth positions on taxes, spending, and government regulation.”

And lastly, a social conservative litmus test would exclude Mayor Rudy Giuliani who when asked “If hypothetically, Roe v. Wade was overturned, and the Congress passed a federal ban on all abortions and it came to your desk, would you sign it?” answered “I probably would not sign it. I would leave it to the states to make that decision.”

Advocating the issues we believe strongly in is perfectly appropriate. As individuals and as conservatives we each have a slightly differing perspective. But only by banding together as people who share a broad range of ideological similarities, we can achieve our common goals.

We need Sen. Brownback to fight for lower taxes.

We need Gov. Huckabee to fight for traditional values.

We need Mayor Giuliani to fight the war on terrorism.

If we begin to exclude those who agree with us mostly, but not completely, the movement will fracture and none of our goals will be achieved.

Beyond the practical opinion that this policy is unwise, it disturbs me as a matter of principle. This rule, in effect, says that anyone having respect for human life but defining the beginning of that life at a point other than a single fertilized egg is somehow deficient, unworthy, a lesser conservative.

I am not a lesser conservative.

I believe in free markets. I stand with Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.

I believe in a strong national defense. I stand with Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and George W. Bush.

The founders of RedState have a right to believe that those who think as I do are not true conservatives.

I have a right to say “No”.

The problem with the “scientific consensus” on global warming is that participants in the debate are not objective.

In other areas of science, it is assumed without question that researchers will follow the evidence wherever it leads with an open mind that is neutral as to the outcome. That is not the case with global warming. Unlike other scientific questions, the answer to whether humans are causing dangerous global warming has massive political implications for economic and social policy.

Scientists are human beings with political and ideological preferences just like the rest of us. If a scientist has a strong preference for a certain political ideology, and that ideology will either be advanced or inhibited based on the results of his research, it is reasonable to view his interpretation of the data with an increased level of skepticism.

If anthropogenic global warming is accepted as real, it will produce wide ranging political and economic changes that have been long advocated by the political left. There will be massive tax increases and much stricter regulation of business.

It should therefore be no surprise that almost all non-scientists who are on the political left insist that global warming is real and use it as an indictment of free market capitalism and the traditional American lifestyle based on consumerism. In the same way, almost all non-scientists who are on the political right insist that global warming is nothing more than liberal hysteria.

On both sides, their conclusions are not based on an impartial evaluation of the data. Neither Al Gore nor Rush Limbaugh are competent to assess the accuracy of a sophisticated computer climate model. Yet they both believe with absolute certainty.

Flawed human beings will always tend to interpret information in such a way that it reinforces our pre-existing ideological preferences or self interest. Given the huge amounts of funding involved, professional standing in academia and personal political preferences, it would be foolish to assume that scientists are not subject to the same failing.

I do not claim that scientists who support anthropogenic global warming are wrong, merely that it is unwise to massively reorder our society based on interpretations of extraordinarily complex data conducted by people who are not neutral as to the result.

When scientists who believe in global warming stop calling colleagues who disagree with them “Flat Earthers” and “Neanderthals”, or insist that “the debate is over” and therefore it is illegitimate to question them, then I may be willing to listen to their arguments. Not until then.

I have been wondering about a unique factor in this year’s polling data. Since a large fraction of people pollsters call refuse to participate, how do pollsters compensate for different response rates from supporters of different candidates?

For example, Obama supporters are enthusiastic about him and may want to brag about supporting him, therefore his supporters may be more likely to want to be polled. However, McCain supporters may not want to brag about voting for him and therefore refuse to answer a poll.

Let’s do a thought experiment with a little math. Assume the electorate consists of 1,000 people. 500 are going to vote for Mr. Jones and 500 are going to vote for Ms. Smith. Let’s further assume that it’s “cool” to vote Mr. Jones, so his supporters will always agree to be polled. But it’s not “cool” to vote for Ms. Smith, so only 75% of her supporters are willing to talk to a pollster.

If the pollster calls all 1,000 voters, he will get 500 for Jones (100% response rate x 500 voters) and 375 for Smith (75% response rate x 500 voters). If the pollster (wrongly) assumes that supporters of each candidate are equally likely to answer the poll, then he will report his results as 57% for Jones and 43% for Smith even though the two candidates are actually tied.

Given the powerful fear of being accused of racism and the difference in the “coolness” factor between McCain and Obama, I can see a fraction of McCain voters simply refusing to be polled.

I know pollsters weight their results for age, race and party ID, but these would not compensate for “coolness” or fear of being thought racist.

If I’m right, all the polls could be understating support for Sen. McCain, but I’d appreciate comments from people with greater knowledge of polling methodology.

Here is my official 2008 Presidential election prediction.

I know this is correct because my cat told me so.


(Hey, It’s all I got.)

The key word in this election is accountability. Pollster Frank Luntz has found “accountability” to produce by far the largest positive reaction in his focus groups; far more than either “experience” or “change”.

People know that Washington has serious problems. Obama is trying to persuade people that the problem is ideology. We had government from the right and it didn’t work out too well. McCain is pushing the idea that the problem isn’t ideology, but rather accountability.

I’m going to suggest an inflammatory analogy.

In the 2006 Palestinian elections, voters rejected Fatah and elected Hamas. There were two competing narratives in the election. There was the ideological split between Hamas as the more radical, Islamist party and Fatah, which was more moderate and secular. The second narrative was corruption and competence. Fatah was seen as corrupt and not meeting the basic needs of the people, while Hamas was perceived as committed to clean efficient government.

The bulk of the Palestinian people, by comparison to Hamas, are not Islamic fundamentalists. Alcohol consumption, smoking, and women’s participation in civil society are fairly well established. As a result, it was widely assumed that voters would not embrace a Hamas ideology that conflicted with these ingrained cultural traditions.

As a result, when Hamas won 74 seats in the parliament compared to Fatah’s 45, many people were shocked. They should not have been. People who were surprised by the result failed to appreciate the level of dissatisfaction in the electorate with the incompetence and corruption of Fatah.

People were frustrated with the government’s failure to deliver improvements in quality of life and disgusted with Fatah placing its own corrupt interests above those of the people. Seen from this perspective, it should have come as no surprise that the people voted to Throw the Bums Out without regard for what would follow.

The lesson that we can take from the Palestinian elections is that most people are not ideologues. While voters do have ideological preferences, for most the highest priorities are simple competence and honesty. The average citizen just wants the trains to run on time.

If our upcoming Presidential election was decided by ideology alone, McCain would win in a landslide. We are still a center right country and he is the center right candidate. The challenge is when ideology and competence can not be separated, as was the case in the Palestinian election. American voters are being asked to choose between the record of an incompetent center right and the promise of a competent center left.

Given those two inseparable options, voters will choose competence over ideology every time. For Sen. McCain to win, he must disaggregate the choice. The election will turn on McCain’s ability to persuade voters that they can reject incompetence without sacrificing their preferred ideology.

In the 2007 French elections, Nicolas Sarkozy faced a similar challenge. He was Interior Minister under the unpopular Jacques Chirac and yet was able to persuade voters that he could bring change without moving left. If McCain can replicate Sarkozy’s strategy of credibly offering a change in accountability while retaining center right ideology, he can win. It’s a difficult needle to thread, but it’s his only chance.

On Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough asked “why is it that Obama seems so small now?” I think I know. Sen. Obama’s greatest strength was never that he was the most qualified candidate. He doesn’t have much of a resume. It was not his ideology. He’s a left wing guy in a right of center country.

His greatest strength was that he was a Star.

Only he’s not the star of the show anymore. Sarah Palin has stolen his spotlight. And what is a star without his stardom? He’s just another guy you pass on the street.

Without the roar of the crowd, Cary Grant is just Archibald Leach.

I am a conservative Republican political addict so I watched Sarah Palin’s speech and was overjoyed. The open question is whether she will appeal to people outside the Republican base.

By chance, I have an early indication. My girlfriend knows nothing about politics and cares even less. She always votes Democrat because “Republicans are bad”.

After the speech, I went into the bedroom. She had apparently heard the speech from the living room and we had the following conversation:

Who was that?

Sarah Palin.

Is she a Republican?

Yes.

That’s too bad, I kinda like her!

In 10 years, this is the first time I have ever heard my girlfriend utter a nice word about a Republican.

It’s just one data point, but if she is at all representative, Sen. Obama is in for a world of trouble.

Republicans are agonizing over how to conduct a convention while the gulf coast is being devastated by a Katrina redux hurricane.

If the convention goes on as planned, Democrats will start yelling “See! they are ignoring your suffering AGAIN!” On the other hand, if the convention is shortened or downsized, the GOP will loose it’s biggest marketing event. It looks like either way, Republicans are screwed.

Or maybe not.

There is one amazingly bold thing Sen. McCain could do that would neutralize the hurricane as a political issue, reinforce his image for putting the country ahead of politics and totally [expletive deleted] the Democrats at the same time.

The first night of the convention, Sen. McCain could announce “The American people need help more than they need campaign commercials, therefore I am donating my entire campaign fund to hurricane relief.”

I know this sounds insane, but look at the numbers. At the end of July, Sen. McCain had $32.7 million cash on hand, Obama had $68.5 million, while the RNC had $75 million and the DNC $29 million.

If Sen. McCain donated all $32.7 million, Sen. Obama would be forced to either 1) jump in and say “me too!” and cough up his $68.5 million and look like he was pandering following McCain’s leadership, or 2) not write the check and have the entire country turn away in disgust.

With both campaign accounts empty, after the convention Sen. McCain will still receive an $84 million check in federal campaign funds plus the $75 million in RNC cash on hand that gives him a war chest of $159 million to last the next two months. Sen. Obama would only have $29 million in DNC cash and no matching funds since he opted out of federal financing.

Imagine the positive press coverage and goodwill (i.e. votes) McCain would buy, while crippling the Democrats financially.

I think I like it!

When all the media pundits were predicting Gov. Tim Kaine (D-VA) to be Obama’s running mate, I don’t seem to recall any shouts of outrage that he was too inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Since Sarah Palin and Tim Kaine both became Governors in 2006, perhaps someone should ask Sen. Obama:

“Why did you think Gov. Kaine was experienced enough to vet for VP, but Gov. Palin isn’t?”

Perhaps he was just more experienced at being male.

Democrats are trying to play up the allegation that Gov. Sarah Palin acted inappropriately in the firing of a State Trooper who threatened her family.

For perspective, imagine if the target of Trooper Wooten’s actions had been someone other than the Governor’s family.

Lets assume that a State Trooper, who has no family relationship with the Governor, drives his patrol car while drunk, tasers his own son and threatens to kill his ex-wife’s father. The Governor becomes aware of this conduct through media reports or court documents and must decide what action to take.

Would it be appropriate for the Governor to simply ignore the problem and hope he doesn’t kill anyone? Most reasonable people would demand that their Governor take action to remove a Trooper who had become unstable and violent.

If Governor Palin had not pushed for this rogue cop to be fired, and he had killed someone, would any of us accept “he was my brother in law” as an acceptable excuse?

The obvious answer is no.

It’s important to remember that the investigation is not being persued by any law enforcement body in Alaska. It is not being investigated by a grand jury or state prosecutors office. The investigation is being led by the Alaska state legislature.

Given the endemic corruption in Alaska state government, and how hard Gov. Palin has been fighting against it, is it any wonder that they would be looking for a little payback?

When a corrupt system attacks you, you’re probably doing something right.

In the August 10th New York Post, liberal columnist Kirsten Powers has a piece about John Edwards titled “He Was Always A Fake“.

Here is a quote that summarizes the theme of her article:

But something about Edwards always seemed uniquely phony, even by the standards of politics. Actually, nothing about him seemed authentic.

Who was he? Apparently, whatever he thought people wanted him to be. In 2000, he helped found the “New Democrat Coalition” for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) along with Sen. Joe Lieberman and others. Then, for his 2004 presidential run, he staked out the populist “Two Americas” theme. By 2008, he’d completed a total morph into a class warrior who pandered to the farthest reaches of the Democratic Left.

Ms. Powers is stating an obvious truth. What I find bizarre is how Democrats were so unwilling to see or admit this obvious truth until Mr. Edwards made it impossible to deny.

For the better part of a year, Democrats heaped praise on Mr. Edwards (if not votes) for his courageous championing of the cause of the poor. Yet now, they seem to be saying “we knew he was a phony all along.”

Sen. Edwards career is done. There is nothing productive to be gained by criticizing him in retrospect. However, there is a lesson to be learned for the future.

Sen. Obama is currently receiving enthusiastic and uncritical praise from Democrats. In their minds, pointing out that he has less experience than any President of the 20th century, or that he has abandoned every core conviction the moment it becomes politically advantageous, is a “distraction” from …well, how wonderful he is.

Democrats did always know that Sen. Edwards was a phony because it was obvious, but they denied it because they didn’t want it to be true.

Deep down they also know that Sen. Obama is also a phony. They know that he is unqualified and they know that he will say anything to get elected. They know this because it too is obvious. But like Sen. Edwards, they deny it to us and to themselves because they don’t want it to be true.

At some point Sen. Obama’s vacuousness and absence of convictions and will become too obvious to deny. And when that day comes, I expect we will see articles from Democrats saying what Ms. Powers said today.

We knew it all along.

In a previous post, I told my sad tale of going down to DC Friday to get in the House gallery and support the GOP drilling protest. Unfortunately, they shut it down earlier than they said they would.

Minority leader Boehner announced (here) that they are doing it again Monday, so I’m going to give it another shot.

Consider this an open invitation for other DC area RedState’rs to meet up at the Capitol to show our support.

We still need to confirm that the House galley will be open and a good meeting time/location. Also, We will need to get gallery passes from our congressmen’s offices, or if we can get a solid head count, I may be able to get them in bulk for us.

Post an RSVP, plus suggestions about coordination. See you there!

With this latest flip flop on drilling, it occurred to me that Obama is the anti-Dennis Kucinich.

I’ve always liked Kucinich, but I never knew why. Now I’ve figured it out.

Dennis Kucinich has ridiculous ideas for America, but he is a sincere man. He stands up for what he believes is best for our country and fights for those ideas come hell or high water.

I strongly disagree with Dennis, but I admire him for fighting for a better America as best he understands it.

Dennis Kucinich has the courage to tell us what he believes even when he knows it won’t sell, and in the face of certain defeat, he does it with a smile and can laugh at himself in the process.

Barack Obama has none of those virtues.

Will Obama stand by his friends when it is politically inconvenient? No, just ask Rev. Wright.

Will Obama stand up for what he believes is right in the face of opposition? No, flipping on drilling is just the latest example.

Will Obama even tell us the truth about what he believes? No, he tells us he always supported what he used to oppose, and tells us it’s our fault for not listening.

Dennis Kucinich may be misguided, but he is an honest man with the courage of his convictions,

…and Barack Obama is no Dennis Kucinich.

Yesterday several GOP House members said on TV they would be keeping their protest on the floor going all night and keeping the gallery open. I wanted to go into DC, get into the gallery, show my support and witness first hand something extraordinary.

At 5pm, I called my Congressman’s office (Frank Wolf VA-10) and they said that even though he wasn’t on the floor, he supported the GOP action on the House floor. I told them I wanted to come down and they said they would give me a gallery pass.

After a half hour drive and an hour on the metro into DC, I got to the Cannon House office building and Rep. Wolf’s office was closed. I couldn’t even get past the security checkpoint.

By now it was after 7pm, so I walked over to the Capitol and asked the Capitol police where the gallery entrance was. The officers were very polite and professional, but it was obvious they didn’t know what was going on.

I got the impression that they were getting conflicting information from the Democratic House leadership (clerk, sergeant at arms etc.) and the Republicans. One of the cops offered to go inside and find out what was going on. He came back and said that the House floor was closed, not just officially, but was really empty and closed down.

I was disappointed. Not just because I had made a long trip for nothing, but because the Republican House members gave incorrect public statements about their plans.

If they had issued a clear public statement to the media that they were going to REALLY pull an all nighter and invited the public to come down and show our support, I’m confidant that certainly hundreds, possibly thousands of us in the DC area would have answered the call.

They had the opportunity to galvanize public support and turn their protest into something larger, something the media could not ignore. But as usual, they failed to unite effectively with their citizen supporters in common cause.

I do appreciate what they did, but they need to understand that they can’t do it alone. They have millions of people who want to support them. We are waiting for leadership, but leadership is more than asking for money every two years.

I tried to do my part and support courageous Republicans. As usual, there weren’t any there.

With all the talk about McCain picking Romney, Pawlenty or Portman as a running mate, I think we shouldn’t ignore some possible dark horses. Case in point, Rep. Heather Wilson (NM-01). She is the only female veteran in congress with a resume that rivals John McCain’s. Plus she has been elected 5 times from a democratic leaning district in the swing state of New Mexico.

She caught my attention when she ripped David Schuster a new one today defending John McCain on MSNBC. Selecting a female VP has obvious advantages. With her strong national security credentials, she is a very plausible commander in chief and has shown that she can be an eloquent and forceful advocate for Sen. McCain.

Here is a clip of Rep. Wilson crushing Rep. Robert Wexler on Hardball. Below the clip are some background facts on Rep. Wilson. RedState’ers, is it just me or is she a dark horse to watch?

Here’s some background:

She is 47 and had been in Congress since 1998.

She graduated as a Distinguished Graduate (magna cum laude equivalent) from the U.S. Air Force Academy.

She was member of the National Security Council as Director for European Defense Policy and Arms Control.

She was a Rhodes Scholar and has a Doctorate in International Relations from Oxford.

She currently serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence.

She has a 78% rating from National Right to Life, indicating that she is generally pro-life, with some moderations such as support for embryonic stem cell research.

She is a strong advocate for victory in Iraq.

On June 3rd, she lost the Republican Senate primary by 51% to 49% to Congressman Steve Pearce to replace Sen. Pete Domenici.

The only possible negative I could find is that she was involved in the controversy over the firing of U.S. attorneys.

I was thinking about Sen. McCain’s strength with national security issues and his relative message weakness on economics. It occurred to me that it may be possible to apply McCain’s image of strength and patriotism to economic issues.

McCain could make the point that Obama is too weak to make the tough decisions necessary for the economic good of the country as a whole. I’ve sketched out the text of a possible 30 second ad to make this point. I’d appreciate opinions about whether this approach might be effective.

“Our economy’s in trouble. Gas is over $4 a gallon and Americans are worried about their jobs. John McCain is ready to lead. John McCain will build 45 new nuclear power plants and allow states to develop our offshore energy reserves, providing new domestic energy for our economy and creating two million new high paying jobs.

Barack Obama said No. The left wing special interest groups are against new energy and new jobs, and Sen. Obama won’t stand up to them.

We need a president who has the courage to put our country first.

John McCain”