Bracing for President Obama

It appears at this writing, the 2008 presidential contest will be Obama vs. McCain. My daughter text-messaged me the other day: "I'm at the caucus!" She lives in Seattle, Washington, which had them on Feb. 9. It is significant in that this is the first time my 25 year old daughter has expressed any interest in politics of any kind. I am sure she is not the only one. It is Barack Obama that is firing an enthusiasm of the young today that more than likely will sweep him into the White House. In perusing the professional and elegant Obama website, it's hard to see anything blatantly objectionable or alarming. For that one would probably need to drill down. But without a doubt the election is shaping up to be the Old vs. the New. When I was my daughter's age, it was John F. Kennedy inspiring the young to sign up for the Peace Corps. I remember seeing all the Peace Corps volunteers undergoing physical training at Cal Berkeley (as if pushups in gym suits would aid them in filthy, disease-ridden villages in Africa). My preference: if I were going to some Third World country, I'd rather go with a Marine division rather than being stuck alone and unsupported in some dirty little village. And that's how I went to Vietnam in 1966.

But an underlying Obama assumption is that one can build heaven on earth with government tax and spend programs. This is pure European social semocracy! As our secular society turns from faith, they pray the "Our Government who art in Washington, Hallowed be thy benefits" as opposed to the traditional "Our Father". But the European social democracies are dying! Their "progressive" culture of death policies have resulted in birth rates so low that the populations are halving every 35 years! This means the cradle-to-grave nanny state is economically unsustainable.

It also means the Islamic <a href="immigration invasion will turn Europe Islamic. Though the Left <a href="">deludes itself into thinking this will result in a "truly multicultural Europe and a more progressive Islam", a Taliban-style Europe is more likely, because the <a href=" ">Wahabbists are building and running the mosques.

A few things come to mind: unfortunately, Satan is the Prince of this world. Inevitably personality, back biting, and corruption follow what always turns out to be just another massive government bureaucracy established in the name of a problem without solving anything.

One has to ask: what happened to Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty"? What happened to Richard Nixon's 1972 "War on Cancer"? What happened to our effort to "protect the liberty of the people of South Vietnam from Communist aggression"? Billions spent with no results!

As for John McCain, he is basically "the last man standing" in the Republican primary process. He will be the Bob Dole of 2008. His campaign has concluded that conservatives "have nowhere else to go". But we do! We can lose interest in politics and go about our lives doing other things, like visiting grandchildren, like bracing ourselves for the massive tax increases that are on the way, moving our holdings offshore where possible.

Not me, not yet

The favorable words about John McCain from Newt Gingrich on Fox News last night were measured, not glowing. He indicated an intention to vote for the GOP ticket (on which I'd love to see Newt himself as VP), but there was no ringing endorsement of Mac the Maverick. My sentiments exactly. It's all very well that Sen. Wayne Allard, former Gov. Bill Owens, former Rep. Bob Beauprez, and Attorney General John Suthers found a way to formally declare for McCain before the sun went down Thursday, mere hours after their former endorsee and mine, Mitt Romney, suspended his campaign. But sorry, I'm not there yet. I'd ask those four friends of mine: What's the hurry?

The very meaning of "suspend" in Romney's statesmanlike announcement at CPAC is that he's keeping his options open. He's still in formal control of his delegates. He too, like Gingrich, is looking to the main event, recognizing the need to beat Barack or Billary, and talking unity -- but he's not yet endorsing McCain. When they do, and Huckabee does, then maybe I will. We do have some time. It's only February.

Sen. McCain's speech at CPAC, conciliatory in tone and solid in substance, was a start, as Patrick Buchanan has written. Buchanan approvingly noted its contrast with Goldwater's open defiance of internal party detractors at the 1964 convention.

However we've yet to see from McCain anything like the strenuous fence-mending efforts of another famous episode from that era, the Treaty of Fifth Avenue in 1960 when Nixon averted a conservative-liberal GOP fracture by paying court to Rockefeller. What would that look like in 2008?

Some kind of summit with conservative movement leaders -- not just elected senators, congressmen, and governors -- might or might not lead to a similar "treaty" as the understanding of 1960. But it would be a long step beyond the rhetoric of CPAC. It might occur as a side meeting at the Council for National Policy's next quarterly conference, a high-level gathering of Reagan faithful and the Christian right, members-only and closed to the press.

I have no idea if any such summit is in the offing, but if McCain is really serious about working with conservatives and not just play-acting, he should be actively seeking it. His pick for Vice President will also be an important signal and gesture to the right. Pat Toomey of the Club for Growth makes several good suggestions there, though Gingrich is still my first choice.

Bottom line, American conservatives aren't mainly a political party or party faction. We are a movement dedicated to conserving, protecting, and where necessary renewing, America as it was meant to be. We can readily acknowledge, at this juncture, that our country would be better defended against most external enemies and threats under President McCain and a Republican administration than under President Hillary Clinton or Obama and a Democratic administration.

But defense and national security, though paramount, are not definitive as far as conservative political choices in 2008 are concerned. Supreme Court appointments, highly important as well, are not definitive either.

We want a conservative movement that preserves its integrity, its spirit and soul, to fight another day -- regardless of defeat within the party or between the parties this year. We insist on one of the two major parties remaining a distinctively conservative party, not a pale centrist echo of the distinctively liberal party opposing us. That way lies a European-style social-democratic future, utterly un-American. That we reject.

Are these non-negotiable goals best achieved by a tactical accommodation with the unconservative John McCain for the purpose of contending for the White House next fall -- which is still a fight against the odds, remember -- or by a parting of ways with McCain despite the short-term political losses certain to result? What leverage do we still have over the presumptive nominee, and what should we demand? What constitutes settling too cheap?

As of today, I honestly don't know. But I know these are the right questions to be asking and the right priorities to be weighing. We'll have to see how it plays out. Again, it's only February for pete's sake -- the convention isn't until September. That's why I prefer to bide my time, even as Allard, Owens, and the others rush with their endorsements of Mac. Not me, not yet.

Tax Ritter rides again

Republicans wouldn't have dreamed of this storyline, but for the second time in less than a year, Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter is proposing a major tax increase. And just like last time, he doesn't want to let you vote on it.

Taxpayers who have just received their property tax bill could be forgiven for mistaking last year's tax "freeze" for a tax hike. After all, when the legislature and the governor pass a new law that causes you to pay more than you would have otherwise, most people understandably think their taxes have been raised.

But since your taxes were "frozen," you don't get to vote ­ even though the Taxpayers Bill of Rights in the state constitution says you should. (If only you had a law degree or a union membership, it would all make perfect sense.)

Now the governor wants to pull a similar legal slight of hand on the cost of renewing license plates on your vehicle.

Ritter's latest plan, cooked up by another of those infamous blue ribbon commissions, is to raise the cost of licensing your vehicles by an average $100 per vehicle per year to raise money for highways.

This would generate about $500 million a year, which sounds like a mighty hefty tax increase. Except that it's called a "fee," not a "tax." Colorado has no Feepayers Bill of Rights, so when lawmakers raise "fees," you don't get to vote.

How subtle is this distinction? It's merely a matter of accounting. Your vehicle registration receipt shows the vehicle's ownership tax and license fee side-by-side.

If the governor wanted to raise the ownership tax by $100, he would need you to approve it at the next election. But if he can get the legislature to raise the license fee, maybe you will forget about it by the next election.

Fat chance, since you will remember each time you renew the license plates on every vehicle you own.

Even the Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel on Transportation recognized that smacking taxpayers with a $100-per-vehicle increase without a vote would be playing with fire.

In November, the commission noted that "the legislature can pass an increase without voter approval. However, referral of the fee to the voters may be more acceptable to the public." Unfortunately, that word of caution is mysteriously absent from the final report.

What's also subtle -- and downright underhanded -- is the legislature's habit of raiding existing highway funds (more than $40 million last year alone) to spend on other pet projects.

Ritter could have protected transportation funding by vetoing those bills, but he didn't. Before taking more money from Colorado drivers, he should demonstrate his commitment by restoring those funds and stopping future raids.

Certainly, a case can be made that funding for the state's transportation system is lagging. Fuel tax revenues don't begin to keep up with inflation because gas and diesel are taxed at a fixed amount per gallon (22 and 20.5 cents, respectively) rather than a percentage of the price.

At $1.062 billion, the transportation budget is at its highest level since 2001-02 when it was bolstered by much lower gas prices and proceeds from Gov. Bill Owens' TRANS bonds which voters approved in 1999.

Since then, gas prices have increased and so have fuel efficiencies and the use of hybrids and alternative fuels, all of which keep fuel consumption relatively flat. Meanwhile, population and miles driven have increased substantially.

The vehicle fee increase would boost transportation funding by about 50 percent, but the blue ribbon commission is backing a much bigger package that would raise more than $1.5 billion a year in from taxes and fees. Also on their wish list are increases in fuel taxes (13 cents a gallon), sales taxes, oil and gas production taxes, and hotel and car rental fees.

"We probably haven't made the case yet to get that on the 2008 ballot," Ritter recently told state legislators.

Definitely not, and if the governor thinks that case will be stronger after drivers are smacked with a $100-a-vehicle "fee" increase, he is in for a big surprise.

Perspective on McCain

Arapahoe County is obviously Romney country, based on his 66% sweep in yesterday's caucus, said GOP county chairman Nathan Chambers at a morning-after breakfast with party activists. But Chambers added that despite his deep differences with John McCain on key policy issues, he'll do everything possible to unify our side behind Mac if the nomination goes his way. Applause in the packed room was loud and long, disagreement was small.

I see it the same way, though with acute indigestion and a raging migraine. "Romney over any Republican if possible, McCain over any Democrat if necessary," is my unjoyous mantra for 2008.

Two friends whom I respect, Vince Carroll of the Rocky's editorial page and Richard Allen of the Reagan inner circle from 1977 onward (who now lives in Denver), appealed for perspective on Mac the Maverick in pieces published today. They give an idea of the soul-searching among Republicans on the right, at this moment of potential fracture in the party.

Carroll's column, "McCain is No Liberal," after acknowledging the senator's many blatant betrayals of conservatism, takes issue with Laura Ingraham's assertion that it's a record any liberal could run on. No liberal, he says,

"would be proud to run on a lifetime rating of 82 from the American Conservative Union, or even the relatively more centrist rating of 65 he compiled in 2006. A liberal would be mortified at such baggage, although no liberal actually has any such rating. More typically, liberals rate in the single digits on the ACU scorecard. Hillary Clinton's lifetime index is nine, for example, with a 2006 rating of eight - the same as Barack Obama's."

Carroll then gives a 10-point rundown on McCain's voting record from Acuratings.org, concluding:

"The animus some conservatives harbor for McCain is not only a reaction to his policies, of course, but also to the contempt he has betrayed on occasion for conservatives themselves. But these irreconcilable differences should not obscure the fact that the McCain record contrasts sharply in a number of areas with both Clinton's and Obama's - should it come to such a comparison in the fall."

Dick Allen was either the initiator or merely the first signer alphabetically -- I don't know which -- on an open letter entitled "Reaganauts for McCain," circulated widely by email and now posted on Townhall.com. Signing with him, in order of their prominence, were Jack Kemp, Peter Hannaford, Frank Donatelli, and Craig Shirley, who all worked with Ronald Reagan during or before his presidency, and who among them have authored seven books about him.

The five co-signers attempt to make the case that John McCain, just like the Gipper (who would have turned 97 today, incidentally) is a break-the-mold agent of Republican renewal for a new time. While I don't find their argument very persuasive, I hold their credentials in high esteem. Near the end of the short manifesto they write:

"Some fellow conservatives find it hard forgive past positions on campaign finance or other matters. When you stop to reflect, however, with whom--among those out there--are we going to be more secure in terms of domestic security than with John McCain? Who has greater understanding of and experience with the foreign policy and national security challenges we will face than John McCain?"

With America at war against a fanatically determined enemy, one can't dismiss this point out of hand. When next I talk with Dick Allen, though -- perhaps on Backbone Radio, where's he is a regular guest -- I want to press him on the difficulty of "forgiving past positions" when the man who took them remains stubbornly and arrogantly committed to them even now.

I also want to query Allen, national security hawk par excellence, about the difficulty of extracting intelligence from radical Jihadist fighters under such McCain-sponsored handicaps as banning harsh interrogation and closing Guantanamo.

And so much more, so much more. But all that in good time. For today, I agree with Richard Allen, Jack Kemp, Vince Carroll, and the rest to this extent at least: "McCain over any Democrat if necessary." But I'm not yet ready to abandon the first half of that formula: "Romney over any Republican if possible."

Caucus Night: Two Views

My friends John Wren and Joshua Sharf recorded half-full and half-empty impressions of Colorado's caucus system after the big night on Tuesday. Before coming to what each had to say, here's my two cents' worth: Though Wren's evocation of progressivism and the 1912 hinge point between TR and Wilson -- both too similar to McCain and Clinton for my taste -- is not persuasive, he's right that caucuses are better than the media- and money-driven direct primary system that Coloradans shied from in that 2002 ballot fight.

But Sharf is also right that the caucuses will remain largely useless, and hence more and more difficult to sustain, unless parties do a much better job of realizing the grassroots gatherings' potential for civic education and involvement.

To be more exact, it's our party, the Republicans, who have to do a better job of that. The Democrats, far ahead of us in para-party organizing and in media/money alliances, would be quite happy to see caucuses fade away in favor of the ultra-progressive direct primary model that Rutt Bridges tried to ram through in 2002.

And now, in the two men's own words...

CELEBRATE THE GRASSROOTS REBIRTH By John Wren

A few critical voices have complained about some of the negative aspects of last night's Colorado Caucus, our ritual every other year since 1912 when the Teddy Roosevelt progressive reforms brought us our current system. Some even call for the elimination of our caucus-assembly system and a return to our pre-1912 ways.

Thomas Jefferson would have preferred that we not have political parties. But he quickly realized that Alexander Hamilton would win every election unless an opposition party was formed. So the two party system that has served us so well for these 200+ years was born. (Unaffiliated voters and 3rd parties have a valid useful place in our system, but it is the two major parties that almost always produce winning campaigns.)

Some say there is no difference between the two parties. This is a sign of health; they are both competing for the majority of voters. Just as supply and demand create an equilibrium price, when the system is healthy Democrats and Republicans create elected government officials who best represent the true will of the people.

The Colorado Caucus is the full flowering of this representative system, but the flowers have wilted in recent decades because of the declining levels of participation and misguided (or devious) party leaders who have tried to bring the system that has been entrusted to their care to an end.

Powerful forces would like to kill the grassroots in Colorado, and return to the powerful elites to their pre-1912 back rooms.

Our caucus-assembly system for nominating to the primary ballot is not perfect. It takes more time, some just aren’t able to attend for various reasons, etc. But these shortcomings are more than compensated for by the fact that it gives the common person a strong voice in our government, something the direct primary just does not do.

People who got involved for the first time last night can now use the leverage of the party system to come back in future years and use the leverage of their party to get on the primary ballot with a fair chance of becoming their party’s nominee in the general election. Doing this without the caucus system is much more expensive, out of the reach of most people.

So the question is this: Is strengthening the voice of the common person worth it? I say yes it is. And 60% of the people in Colorado agreed in 2002 when the question was on the ballot and everyone got a chance to voice their opinion. Let’s not be misled now by the whining voices of a few slackers and the manipulation of the elite.

Wake up Colorado! Celebrate the victory of last night’s massive turnout. Let this day mark a new dawning, the rebirth of the true grassroots in Colorado.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

WHAT THE HELL WERE WE VOTING FOR? By Joshua Sharf

A word to the wise know-it-alls who run the Denver Republican Party.

Organize. A little.

For one thing, please try to hold the caucuses in a place where there's some parking. Secondly, the Hillary! posters on the outside of the hall were cute, perhaps a reminder of why we were all there. Oh, we got a better turnout than we did two years ago - my precinct showed 8 voters, compared to 3 in 2006. But then, Denver Republicans are a somewhat more...select...crowd, anyway.

But of the 8 people there, I was the only one who had gone through the process before, and I was the only one who even vaguely understood what the hell we were voting for, and only then because Dick Wadhams was on the show Sunday night explaining it. I'm still not sure I understand the multi-county vs. single-county State Representative and State Senate Assemblies.

There was absolutely no reason why someone didn't stand up on the stage and explain to the assembled the three-tiered Assembly system, and what the Presidential Preference Poll actually meant. The only reason was that the County party seemingly sent exactly one District official, who was clearly overworked.

You want to build the party? Use the caucuses as a chance to educate those who are there about this 19-Century [or early 20th-Century, according to Wren - Ed.] process we continue to use. I have no objections to using it, but when you leave those who do bother to show up confused and unsure what they just voted for, you're guaranteeing they won't come back next time. By turning what should be an exercise in party-building into an exercise in frustration, the party missed yet another critical opportunity to engage what should be its most active supporters.

Cross-posted from View from a Height at JSharf.com and Gang of Four at PoliticsWest.com