I spent 20 years in uniform. In 20 years, I was betrayed. I swore an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic'. While I 'manned the walls', somebody let the enemies under the walls and into the courtyard: fellow countrymen have allowed internal rot to erode the force & effect of the constitution I defended. Outright betrayal.

Still, a point to amplify: betrayal from arrogance 'reaching across the aisle' to the usual liberal suspects.

As a conservative, I have a memory that I'm not afraid to use. I remember the lies & duplicities of liberals & outright admitted socialists, of 'compassionate conservatives', and of would-be conservatives who behave as if having tumbled gyroscopes for their Jiminy Crickets. Being conservative also means I believe in an immutable standard of right versus wrong, that I'm not ashamed to call a lie a lie, and that I insist all should stick to the agreed rules, like the constitution ... or leave us.

No, the 80% change I want is to take the kid gloves off against those who throw mud to see what sticks. I want to lose the politically correct veneer: the politics of personal destruction is NOT in calling a lie a lie, it's in telling the lie in the first place. Those who speak plainly, unashamed to point out the lies, those are the candidates I'm willing to vote for and support. Conservatism does this. Conservatives will send a Packwood packing just as quickly as sending away a Studds, while the liars will join against Packwood, but circle wagons around a Studds. 

Most of America doesn't give a hoot about 'partisan politics' so much as we want integrity we can trust ... integrity that forbids betrayal. ENOUGH with lies and all the rest of Relative Morality's hidden praise of duplicity!

Conservative victory, the phoenix of integrity ... we need it.

Anybody ever notice that Republican success in national elections is directly related to how conservative the Republican is???!!! ('DumbOxBellowed' blog shows details in a featured essay.)

I wish the 2008 ticket was Palin-Anybody, with a cabinet including Thompson, Gingrich, Alexander, Keyes, DeLay, Lott, Santorum, Thune, etc. (I remember how some of them were tarred & feathered, run out of DC on a rail, then exonerated. THAT is the politics of personal destruction.) No human is perfect, but a cabinet like those names would probably keep each other true to politics of service, away from politics of self-embellishing duplicity. 

Barack Obama, candidate for USA President, has decided to face a grave danger. Maybe he’s not fully aware of the danger and its implications. Maybe he is. Probably, the USA is not fully aware of the implications. The discussion hasn't started!

1. Significance.

2. Facts.

Regardless of anything related to Mr Obama’s own choosing, objective reality is that he is the son of an African Muslim. 

 - To Christian and secular ears, that last phrase elicits “So what?”. But not to Muslim ears. Islam holds that all descendants of a Muslim are also Muslim, without choice. (This bit of Islamic doctrine helps explain why countries, once Islam arrives, have almost never changed to any other religion, and never without significant bloodshed.)   

3. Implications.

a. Apostate, under death sentence, in the White House.

Mr Obama’s religious choice also gives the USA certain inseparable uncertainties. Every president faces certain assassination risks, with resulting Secret Service costs, and personal movement restrictions. We contain & guard our presidents and, to lesser extents, their family members and friends. USA citizens accept the cost, and presidents accept the restrictions on their freedoms of movement, since the president fills a singular elected office that is critical to the continuing functioning of the U.S. government. But … 

 - What is the cost, Secret Service and the rest, of protecting a president and his family from Islamic apostasy’s automatic death sentences?   

 - What would be the cost of Islamic terrorists successfully assassinating somebody close to a President Obama?   

 - What would be the international and propaganda cost of radical Islamic terrorists successfully carrying out the death sentence on a USA president and/or family member(s)?  

b. Secrets.

There is another option. A President Obama could chose (or could have already chosen) to be a secret Muslim. This could save his life, and the lives of his girls. But this option would still spell certain grave difficulties for the USA. The difficulties would be real, whether the difficulties resulted in actual problems or not, with an Obama presidency during a war against Islamic terrorists.   

 - Having non-public associations or actions, that one wishes to remain secret, usually will prevent a military individual or civil servant from obtaining (or keeping) a security clearance. Extortion has been proven a powerful tool against citizens entrusted with national security. Thus the White House should also have no secrets that ‘bad guys’ can leverage for extortion.

 - The War Of The Reconquest (France, Spain, & Portugal, 660s AD thru 1492 AD) holds many examples of how secret Muslims left varying levels of havoc within Iberian cities & countrysides.  Most cities in central Iberia changed hands many times. Often, the secret Muslims would be simply awaiting the arrival of the next Muslim army, then become active 5^th Columnists (albeit centuries before the term was coined).

Would a secret Muslim in the executive office … 

 - be a conflicted mind, and thus pose a low-level threat to the nation from within?   

 - be coerced or co-opted into actions harmful to the USA? 

4. Conclusion: 

Again, this post only raises a question.   The question's worth noting, and discussing, and resolving

 - It’s proven that Mr Obama, and his girls, are apostate Muslims, whether they (or we) would wish it to be, or not.   

 - What is NOT clearly proven is whether the automatic Islamic death sentences are a burden unwise for the USA to accept in the Oval Office.  Maybe it’s unwise. Maybe it’s actually wise. And, maybe it just doesn’t matter. But if it does matter, we’d better go into it with full awareness …   

 - The ‘death sentences’ point is worth a little discussion, since ‘we the people’ have to know what we’re getting with our vote, or else democracy turns into dictatorship…

1. Yes, finally, an election of ‘change’: 

 - a liberal democrat riding a wave of discontent against D.C. Politics As Usual

 - a moderate republican emphasizing his ability to change things by reaching across the aisle. 

Yes, a year of ‘change in the wind’ for the record books that chronicle major shifts in American politics:

 - Obama v. McCain, 2008. 

 - But also

     -- Clinton v. Dole, 1996, and

     -- Clinton v. Bush Sr., 1992

2. Yes, quite an election year. And Republicans ignorant of history are likely to repeat the 1992 Clinton defeat of Bush Sr ... or repeat the 1972 victory that led inevitably to the 1973-5 quagmire that led to Carter's malaise ...

   a.  “All politics is local” …  Republicans adopted this phrase after the 2004 elections, to their demise in 2006

     - but it’s the liberals who think small & local, and expect the same from their elected politicians

     - conservatives tend to think about the nation ahead of pork, and expect the same from their elected politicians

   b.  “Those ignorant of the past are condemned to repeat it” … which begs a scrutiny …

     - “Watergate” was a watershed political moment. Pays to review the record since that watershed birthed modern political trends.  The record shows that Reagan was the most conservative Republican, and won overwhelmingly.  The rest were less conservative, and won (barely) or lost to the degree they shied from conservative principles.  (See blow-by-blow in my post "Republicans Win When Conservative")

4. Republicans: be conservatives for once.  We sure can't get it from Democrats, and (so far) no other party has a chance.  Republicans can be conservative, or go into political dustbin of history.  Republicans, be conservative for your electoral good, and the good of the country!

 - Don’t waffle. Be somebody we can trust. 

 - Uphold truth, eschew lies.

 - Insist on justice triumphing over relative morality; laws of the land trumping elitist agenda. 

Nationally, Republicans win when conservative. The more conservative, the bigger the margin:

A.  “Watergate” was a watershed political moment. Pays to review the record since that watershed birthed modern political trends.

1976. Ford, blue-blood, only moderately conservative, unable to overcome liberal domestic policies and Nixon’s Watergate shadows: lost

1980. Reagan, staunch “no pale pastels” conservative: won (overwhelmingly).

1984. Reagan, again sticking to principles, beating off venomous liberal attacks: won (overwhelmingly).

1988. Bush Sr, riding Reagan’s conservative coattails: won (solidly).

1992. Bush Sr, re-electing on own less-than-conservative record (i.e.: “no new taxes” aftermath of “compromise” with liberals): lost (miserably).

1996. Dole, with only transparent lip-service to conservative principles: lost (soundly).

2000. Bush Jr, emphasizing ‘conservative’ in liberal-leaning ‘compassionate conservative’: won (barely).

2004. Bush Jr, riding conservative record on stem cells, euthanasia, & Terrorism War credentials, when promises of controlling spending & even winning the war were still believable (despite lack of evidence): won (solidly).

B.  Seems that Republicans win the presidency when they stick to conservative principles. Coincidence, or Causality?  Who knows.  Doesn't matter; the relationship exists! 

Republicans:  re-starting in 2008, be conservative!

Dear Presidential Hopefuls:

A President Obama scares me. I spent twenty years in uniform to fight socialists – violent revolutionaries bent on government control & power in the name of Worker’s Paradise. That was two decades of my life to fight these enemies, whether foreign or domestic. 

But a President McCain doesn’t inspire me, and hardly even reassures me. Frankly, a political history like his is one of appeasing liberals on their pet issues, while not even achieving quid-pro-quo from them.  His ilk have not been political champions in the fight against socialist revolution, especially not against their political usurpations within our own borders. Even in this 2008 election, Sen McCain's ilk have proved wimps when disavowing state-level political ads that dared to tell the unvarnished truth about opponents; they were concentrating on cream-puff ads. We will see if recent changes in Sen McCain's ad styles remain, and we will see how he heals with damage caused by prior disavowals & distancings.

Yes, I want “change”.  But I want change the opposite direction from which Republicans & Democrats alike have been going in the last five years. I like a stand against earmarks. But that doesn't go far enough. I want change of the kind that boldly proclaims, and ACTS, to get the Federal government smaller overall. I want change that refocuses the Federal government from wealth-redistribution to governmental chores that equally benefit all citizens: national defense (including military, border, and strategic materials), internal infrastructure (interstate roads, rails, bridges), space exploration (with environment favorable not just to NASA), international trade agreements (especially to account for foreign governmental subsidies and slave-labor), parental freedom to raise & educate their own children, the constitutional right of ALL men to live from conception to natural death (unless one proves to be an uncontrollable menace to others’ right to live), and a judicial system that actually punishes offenders (so they never want to come back to jail/prison).

In 2008, as always, the highly sought ‘moderate vote’ won’t matter much.

1. The three voting blocks: liberals, moderates, conservatives

 - Democrat base (liberals)

                -- Obama will win the liberal vote. He’s one of them. Sure, other liberal margin candidates will take some of the liberal vote, but Obama has all the credentials to secure that liberal vote pretty solidly. The Democrat’s liberal base is very active, measured by percentage of voters who actually vote.  They’re going to break for the most liberal candidate that can plausibly win, whether Green Party or Democrat party.  They won’t vote McCain.

                -- McCain won’t win the Democrat base, no matter how much he fancies himself a unifier or any similar stupid buzz phrase.  Liberals, the Democrat base, will like McCain only as far as they can use him, and only when a liberal Democrat is unavailable.  We face no shortage of liberal Democrat politicians.  Writing’s on the wall.  McCain won’t get the liberal Democrat vote no matter how many times he facilitates liberal agendas with his crossing over.  The base is too liberal; McCain cannot possibly be liberal enough to outshine established & credentialed liberal candidates.

- Undeclared voters (moderates)

                -- Moderates, indeed, probably form the majority of American citizens.  But it matters not.  ‘Voters who vote’ is what matters. Seldom has a national election even achieved energizing 60% of eligible voters.  In most all USA elections, only half or less  of eligible voters actually find the desire to vote. 

                -- It’s a truism that most undeclared voters don’t declare because they also don’t care enough to vote.  Mostly, moderates are not declared for any party, nor even as ‘independent’. 

                --  Let’s discuss ‘independents’. Independents are generally either liberal or conservative, to some degree, but disaffected from their nominal party of similar thinkers. Independents, though, when energized by a strong candidate, tend to vote their nominal party affiliation, when push comes to shove, no matter their official ‘independent’ status. Otherwise, Independents show their disaffection by simply not voting. 

                -- Winning the moderates is a dead-end that only leads to de-energizing one’s base, and losing the election.   It really doesn’t matter, to win the ‘moderates’.  This is merely a Potempkin Village, no matter that Republicans have been seeking it since Bush Sr foolishly abandoned the coalition electing his predecessor. 

- Republican base (conservatives)

-- McCain must strike enough conservatism to be a standard-bearer for the Republican base. The problem:  McCain is stuck on ‘reaching across the aisle’, no matter how foolish it makes him look to all but him.  His foolishness is, in part, an ability to consistently pick the wrong fights during which to cross the aisle.  Beyond that, conservatives have marked the liberals’ tendency to work with conservatives who decide to partner with them on liberal issues, without any reciprocal partnering on conservative issues.

-- McCain can, perhaps, strike enough conservatism to be a standard-bearer for Democrats who finally see their party is far more liberal than ever. McCain can ‘convert’ Democrats who are upstanding citizens, who believe in the civic responsibility to be politically active, who uphold traditional American values. He must show them they are too conservative for the party they’ve traditionally given allegiance to. But people who have habits will change those habits only when the incongruence is pointed out, and an alternative shown to them. This requires plain speaking, and details.

-- McCain may have time to pick fights more carefully, more prudently; there may still be time with which to capitalize on his ability to put trust in adversaries.

2. Different federal offices

 - Presidency. 

                -- As things stand now, McCain can win.  Can.  Not ‘will’.  He must sling truth hard, loudly, and with as much certainty as his opponent (and co-travelers) slings the mud of half-truths, vague platitudes, and other lies.  No need for lies nor dirty tricks, no matter how tempting, just paint his socialist opponent precisely as socialist as he is. 

-- If McCain can at least stand up enough to be willing to call a lie a lie, and to allow publicists to point them out, then he can possibly generate sufficient conservative enthusiasm.  Thus is a method of a true conservative.   This is the method for a Republican to win.

 - Coat tails. 

                -- Incumbency will be strong, our system has become one in which the elected powers attempt to secure their power. Incumbents have demonstrated amazing ability to cling to office regardless of opinion polls showing approval ratings in single digits. With Republicans still trending to the policies that lost them the 2006 elections, liberals are gaining seats in purple districts/states, maybe even in a bunch of red ones (like the special elections show).   

                -- Coat tails probably exist only for the Democrat, but remain McCain’s to win too. McCain is not a slogan any conservative can use for re-election. But McCain is not a slogan any moderate Republican can use either, due to realities among the three voting blocks.

3. Conclusion: 

 - Givens.

                -- There are lots of liberal voters who vote. 

                -- There are lots of conservative voters who vote. 

                -- There are fewer moderate voters who vote. 

                -- Seeking the moderates is as foolish as seeking the fringe extreme on either the liberal or conservative sides; it tends to alienate the mainstream liberal and the mainstream conservative voters, wherein lies the bulk of votes available.

 - A method to McCain & Republican victory, even with their (plural) vote-de-energizing problem:  

                -- McCain should point out a new realization that reaching across the aisle is far easier when from a position of strength. He must illustrate -- long & loud -- how he, Candidate McCain as Senator McCain, has demonstrated solid conservative principles by doing A, B, and C, even while learning hard lessons -- after the fact -- about power positions when eschewing conservative principles while doing D and E.  It’s gotta be loud and unrelenting, since Senator McCain specifically, and congress generally, are seen to be just as the book new mentions:  ‘wimps to the right’.   

                -- McCain, and Republican Party generally, have a large order to fill, trying to demonstrate conservatism after so many liberal Republican maneuvers in the last several years.  Trite as it sounds, and as likely as liberals will rail against it:  “truth, justice, and the American way!”, and “this is no time for pale pastels, paint with bold colors.” Though Napoleon stood for many principles antithetical to American values, he was nevertheless one of history’s best motivators of populations. How? Well, Napoleon is reputed to have said, “A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day, nor for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul, in order to electrify him.” 

                -- Republicans tend to win in direct proportion to how conservative they make themselves. Capture the USA’s increasing numbers of conservatives in 3 groups (Republican Party, of recent departure from Republican Party, Reagan Democrats).  McCain must electrify all who are conservative, even those who don’t yet realize they are or how liberal their current political party has become. That’s the only way. 

 - Winning the conservatives’ energy is how a Republican wins. Seeking the ‘moderate vote’ is a Potempkin Village.

 - Duck Archer