I haven’t mentioned it in a while, but Reclaim Conservatism is looking for writers who would like to write on the topics of Conservatism, Conservative Values and Principles, and Reclaiming conservatism. It can be recurring or just an occasional, or even one time, post.

You can do this two ways. If you want to contribute on a regular basis just register here (the link is down at the bottom of the right sidebar) and shoot an email to lakelandjim at gmail dot com letting me know of your interest. Or, if you just have a guest post you’d like to add here send it to contributors at reclaimconservatism dot com.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Are the results we are about to see meaningful beyond the districts and states involved, or is the outcome essentially meaningless?

My gut says that the truth is somewhere between the extremes. At the core, however, I think that this will be a good day for conservatism and conservative values. Your thoughts? The comments are open.

UPDATE: Poll Added.

CIT Group, one of those too big to fail?  Infused with 2.3 billion dollars of taxpayer money?

Yeah!

The Obama Stimulus … Too Big! And its failing!

XPosted at GM’s Place

Following the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama for his incredible record of, well, nothing, at bRight & Early I pointed to an article in The American Spectator by Jeffry Lord. In the article he suggested that a real peace prize should be created and awarded in the name of someone who actually promoted peace and liberty around the world — Ronald Reagan.

The hard cold facts of history illustrate that the peace through strength policies initiated by President Reagan were a success. His belief in the importance of human freedom, in directly opposing tyranny and protecting liberty, combined with the maintenance and, when needed, projection of a strong military, ended the Cold War and the “evil empire” that was the Soviet Union. Reagan’s strategy freed millions of East Europeans enslaved since the end of the Second World War, which in turn was brought on by the inexcusably wrong-headed, naive if well-intentioned policies of one Nobel Peace Prize winner after another.

Jeffery has taken this idea and begun action to create Ronald Wilson Reagan Prize for Peace.

Bookmark the site, and follow future announcements on Twitter and Facebook.

Spread the word. Hit the “Retweet” button in the upper right corner. Thanks!

If you listen to the MSM or the Left in this country, you always hear how mean and selfish Conservatives are.   We do not want to help the poor or various other inane reasons why we hate Black people and people less fortunate.   well, if you really want to know, Conservative is the best thing for all.   Free Markets and Liberty will always lead to a more prosperous country.   But if you look at what the MSM and Left, the only way you can get happiness is through the government.   This is the antithesis of what our country was founded on.  Individualism and Federalism were some of the main foundations of that Document that the Left think is a living document.

Each state would be its own entity and the Federal government would be there to protect the states.  Now the hand of the Federal Government is in our every day life and the Supreme Court has allowed the Commerce Clause to be used in ways the Founding Fathers never thought it should be used.  We have the Federal Government telling states that they will get money for projects if they jump through hoops to get them.

Somewhere along the way, the United States of America has lost its way and we need to get it back on track.  As in this video we see the Soft Tyranny poking its head into our country.

Click here to view the embedded video.

That is the Question??

I guess it is very hard to actually pinpoint where I lie on the political spectrum.   I think I am a Libertarian Conservative as my friend Snooper has posted about.  As many of us on the Conservative/Libertarian side see the GOP going more and more left every day and getting farther and farther away from the basic principles that had drawn us to the Grand Old Party.   I agree a lot with what Snooper posted, to a certain extent, I am not a really big fan of Ron Paul and his minions.   But there is much the GOP needs to address to get back many of the Libertarian wing of the party.   I do not think that in this day and age, a third party is a viable option, there is too many obstacles put upbut both the RNC and DNC.

So where does that leave us, the ones that tend to be a little more Libertarian and not as much just Republicans, but believe in principles and the Founding Father’s intent.  Make no mistake, both the DNC and RNC have amultitude of power hungry politicians that do not do what is best for the country, and do what they think will get them elected or the next donation.  They are mainly charlatans and none have a firm backbone or stand on principle.   I may not agree with all of Ron Paul’s ideas, but at least he stands by his principles.   Just look at Sen Specter.   In his speech he pretty much said that he changed party just so he would win the next election,  as he did in his early career by the way.

Again where does that leave us???   My brother worked for the IL GOP House many years ago.  And it pretty much made him disgusted with the whole political process.   Just think, “you never really want to see how they make sausage”.  And that is our political system.   Hate it or not.  That is what we have got.   We have too many that do not care and will only read a little here or there about what is going on in DC, and even less on what is going on in the local government.   Too many care about who will won the next American Idol or who gets kicked off of Survivor to carewhat is happening to our country.

What I  think we need is to try and get the Voters to actually give a damn about what happens.  Too many have lost faith in our political system and have just given up and could care less.  Apathy is everywhere,  and all theshenanigans that our trusted leaders do every year does not help.  The thing is how to get people more involved and motivated to look into what is going on around them.  I do not know exactly how to do that.  If anyone has any ideas , leave a comment.

And then we on the right side of the aisle seem to always fight and stab each other in  the backs.  I know that we need to have a big tent in the GOP, but does that mean that we should leave the principles of Limited Government, Strong Defense and more Liberty at the door???  The Libertarians fight with the Neo-Cons, the paleo-cons fight with the Religious Right.   This needs to stop, or we will be left so far behind and be walking the wilderness for a long time to come.    We need to find the things we all agree on and stop fighting about the minutia.   There is not going to be any Political Party or Politician that I am going to agree with %100.  And I doubt that anyone out there will find one that will.  So we need to join together and fight against the real enemy, the Left in this country that wants to drag America into a European Socialist state, which Obama has be doing at a fast pace.

Work on the Wiki continues. As I work on some of the pages and sections and behind the scene stuff I am coming out here to ask a question.

Stix had a suggestion, that we add a section with information and links to groups and organizations that promote conservative ideas. What groups would you suggest? Please put your suggestions in the comments.

South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint laid out a very practical look at building the Republican “Big Tent” in a WSJ Opinion piece yesterday. Key to such an effort is this:

To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a “big tent” party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party — the organizing principle and the crucial alternative to the Democrats — must be freedom. The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions. If Republicans can’t agree on that, elections are the least of our problems.

The Republican Party has spent a lot of time and effort trying to construct a big tent by stitching a bunch of little tents together. It has proven to be ineffective and, in some cases, impossible. We tend to overlook the fact that despite the myriad of fabrics we use to cover our tents the supports hold much in common.

The reality that, “The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions” is the common theme that can provide the basis for all of our coalition building.

Freedom will mean different things to different Republicans, but it can tether a diverse coalition to inalienable principles. Republicans can welcome a vigorous debate about legalized abortion or same-sex marriage; but we should be able to agree that social policies should be set through a democratic process, not by unelected judges. Our party benefits from national-security debates; but Republicans can start from the premise that the U.S. is an exceptional nation and force for good in history. We can argue about how to rein in the federal Leviathan; but we should agree that centralized government infringes on individual liberty and that problems are best solved by the people or the government closest to them.

John Hawkins adds his thoughts:

Still, this ain’t football. It’s not all about cheering for “our team.” So, being a “Republican” has to mean something. So, what DeMint lays down are some very broad and inclusive — but also, conservative principles that EVERY Republican — moderate, conservative, libertarian leaning, neocon, paleocon, and social conservative should be able to agree on. If you can’t AT LEAST agree to the incredibly basic principles that DeMint is discussing here, then you’re probably in the wrong political party.

Ed Morrissey makes several good points:

Jim DeMint, who has campaigned for conservatives and conservative causes, advises his allies on the Right that the GOP needs to narrow its focus if it expects to win elections again. In fact, the more narrow the focus, the bigger the tent

One key problem plaguing Republicans has been trying to be all things to all people. This leads to attempts to provide government solutions, federal solutions, on what should be state, local, and individual issues.

Senator DeMint:

Moderate and liberal Republicans who think a South Carolina conservative like me has too much influence are right! I don’t want to make decisions for them. That’s why I’m working to reduce Washington’s grip on our lives and devolve power to the states, communities and individuals, so that Northeastern Republicans, Western Republicans, Southern Republicans, and Midwestern Republicans can define their own brands of Republicanism. It’s the Democrats who want to impose a rigid, uniform agenda on all Americans. Freedom Republicanism is about choice — in education, health care, energy and more. It’s OK if those choices look different in South Carolina, Maine and California.

The problem, especially in recent years, is that instead of offering candidates and policies that adhere to these basic principles Republicans have too often presented themselves as “Democrat-Lite”.

Captain Ed once again:

If the GOP presents voters with a choice between a fake Democrat and a real Democrat, voters will choose the authentic item every time. The Republican Party at some point began being afraid of its own core values of smaller government, greater personal freedom, and federalism.

DeMint makes it very clear why this is true.

If the American people want a European-style social democracy, the Democratic Party will give it to them. We can’t win a bidding war with Democrats.

We have been trying to win that bidding war on the cheap. Unsuccessfully. And wrongly. In the process the only thing we’ve managed to do has been to drive up the price. We can’t continue to do this and hope to be successful as a party and, I would argue, as a nation.

Cross posted from bRight & Early.

Gov. Sanford has it totally right.   We do have the 10th Amendment and that is that all thing not specifically said in the Constitution goes back to the states or the people.  We have long ago totally lost what our country is all about.   We are a Republic, with each state is their own entity and the Federal Government is there to proect us from danger within and from outside the country.   But we now have the Federal Governmetn telling States what they can and cannot do.  This is not how the country was formed, States had more power and the Federal Government could not use money to force states to do its bidding.

Sanford is right to refuse to play in this game and should be commended.

America’s states are laboratories of democracy. They are both affected by, and relevant to, the larger national debate. What we’ve found in our own corner of the country is that carrying a substantial debt load limits our options when it comes to running government.

A recent report by the American Legislative Exchange Council ranked us 47th worst in the nation for annual debt service as a percentage of tax revenue. Our state dedicates nearly 11% of its annual tax revenue to paying debt. On top of that, South Carolina has another $20 billion in unfunded, long-term political promises for pensions and other liabilities. The state budget has already been cut four times in recent months as the national economic downturn has impacted South Carolina and driven down tax revenue.

President Barack Obama recently signed a “stimulus” bill that will spend about $2 billion through “programmatic means” in South Carolina. In other words, the federal government will put this money directly into existing funding formulas and programs such as Medicaid. But there is an additional $700 million that I as governor have influence over, and it is the disposition of this money that has drawn the national spotlight to South Carolina.

Here’s the background: Before the stimulus bill passed, I asked for states not to be bailed out. After it was signed into law, I said that a state bailout would create more problems than it solved, and that we shouldn’t spend money we don’t have. That debate was lost, so I looked for a reasonable middle ground. I asked the president for his support in using the $700 million to pay down state debt.

If we’re going to spend money we don’t have at the federal level, it becomes all the more important that our state balance sheet is in good order — particularly if this is a protracted downturn. But many people do not realize that the stimulus money runs out in 24 months — at which point South Carolina will be forced to find a new source of funding to sustain the new level of spending, or to make sharp cuts. Sure, I could kick the can down the road; in two years, I’ll be safely out of office. But it would be irresponsible.

If South Carolina could use stimulus money to pay down debt, in two years we will be able to spend, cut taxes or invest even if the federal government can no longer provide more money — not a remote possibility. In fact, paying debt related to education would free up over $162 million in debt service in the first two years and save roughly $125 million in interest payments over the next 13 years — just as paying off a family’s mortgage early frees up money for other uses.

When you’re in a hole, the first order of business is stop digging. South Carolina is in a hole, and it’s not a shallow one. Spending stimulus money on ongoing programs would mean 10% of our entire state budget would be paid for with one-time federal funds — the largest recorded level in state history.

Also, spending stimulus money will delay needed state restructuring. General Motors recently found itself in a similar spot. It needs to be restructured if it is to prosper, but a federal bailout enabled it to put off hard decisions. Likewise, taking federal stimulus money will only postpone changes essential to South Carolina’s prosperity. Though well-intended, it forestalls hard choices we must make.

One of Mr. Obama’s central campaign themes was his pledge to do away with politics of the past. In his inaugural address, he proclaimed “an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

This idea connected with millions of voters, myself included. I’ve always believed ideas should rise and fall on their merits. In fact, I saw such historical significance in his candidacy and the change he spoke of that I published an op-ed on it before South Carolina’s presidential primary last year. It was not an endorsement, but it did note the historic nature of his candidacy and the potential positive change in tone it represented. That potential may now be disappearing.

Last week I reached out to the president, asking for a federal waiver from restrictions on stimulus money. I got a most unusual response. Before I even received an acknowledgment of the request from the White House, I got word that the Democratic National Committee was launching campaign-style TV attack-ads against me for making it.

Is this the new brand of politics we were promised? Instead of engaging with me and other governors on the merits of our dissent, I am to be attacked in television ads? In the end, I just don’t believe a problem created by too much debt will be solved by piling on more debt. This doesn’t strike me as an unreasonable or extremist position.

Nevertheless, the White House declined my request for a waiver yesterday afternoon. That’s unfortunate. But in coming months we’ll continue advancing the debate at the state level about the merits of debt repayment. The fact remains that while we’d all like to spend unlimited dollars on the very real needs that exist in our state, we must spend in the context of what is sustainable.

Mr. Sanford, a Republican, is the governor of South Carolina.

Wall Street journal

I think this teenager had the best explanation of what Conservatism is at the whole CPAC conference.   I missed it while I was there, but heard a lot about it.  I do  not think I could explain it any bettter.   Conservatives does not always equal Republican, and it is not a party but a set of principles that guide our lives.   And the quicker the GOP sees that Conservatives are not sheep that follow the Republican Party, the better they will be.  I know the Republican PArty needs to be the big tent party and reach out to the less Conservative people in the Party, but Copnservatives are the backbone of what was the so-called Conservative Party.   I know the big brouhaha over Rush and Steele will get over played and is more of a tempest in a teapot than what it really was, a terrible interview with a comedian on CNN.

But here is the best explanation of Conaervatism out there.   Rush’s was not bad at all either.

Click here to view the embedded video.