The biggest threat to the liberal agenda is . . . “liberals”. That is the opinion of Democrat political machinist William M. Daley as stated in his Christmas Eve Washington Post opinion piece. The corollary, which he states somewhat subtly, is that the salvation of the liberal agenda is “moderates”. I think it is fair to say that Daley could be considered an expert on advancing the liberal cause. Daley’s missive is just the ribbon that ties together a couple of themes that have emerged over the past week or so.

Several conservative infotainers have recently excoriated Barack Obama for not having a specific Health Care Reform (HCR) plan of his own, and for not being intimately familiar with the Senate and House HCR plans. The ire from the right may be feigned for shock value, or it may be real. Non-the-less it should be no surprise to the pundits that Obama simply doesn’t care what is in the final legislation. Oh, there are things that he would like to see in the bill, but he will sign any bill that crosses his desk and appropriately declare victory. The reason that he will be very happy to do so is provided eloquently by Mr. Daley;

“All that is required for the Democratic Party to recover its political footing is to acknowledge that the agenda of the party's most liberal supporters has not won the support of a majority of Americans -- and, based on that recognition, to steer a more moderate course on the key issues of the day, from health care to the economy to the environment to Afghanistan.

For liberals to accept that inescapable reality is not to concede permanent defeat. Rather, let them take it as a sign that they must continue the hard work of slowly and steadily persuading their fellow citizens to embrace their perspective.”

Barack Obama and William Daley both understand one thing very well, how to move the ball down the field. Every compromise by a moderate Republican or Blue Dog Democrat moves the ball towards the liberal goal. Moderates plus time equals liberalism. Conservatives understand this, and now we see evidence by the hand of William Daley that Liberals understand it as well. Where it is clear why elements within the Democrat Party would want to ‘slowly and steadily’ chart a course toward liberalism, there is simply no benign explanation for why elements within the Republican Party would strive toward that exact same goal.

Daley also has a warning for the Republican Party regarding Republicans that aren’t moving to the center along with him;

“If anything, the Democrats' salvation may lie in the fact that Republicans seem even more hell-bent on allowing their radical wing to drag the party away from the center.”

That would be that pesky ‘radical wing’ that wants to follow the constitution and adhere to America’s founding principles. This is nothing more than one more instance in a series of thinly veiled attacks on the founding fathers and the constitution. It should not go unnoticed that moderates are counted among Daley’s allies in that assault.

There was a time, recent enough that I am almost embarrassed to admit it, that I believed the leftward tilting bias in mainstream US media was institutional. It seemed reasonable that the bias was due to the fact that nearly every aspect of the mainstream media's product is conceived, validated and fabricated in left-wing echo chambers of like thinkers. There is an almost complete lack of ideological diversity within the US media establishment. The 2008 Presidential campaign was the effort that finally succeeded in disabusing me of the final vestiges of my unfortunately idealistic notion. US media bias is intentional and there is ample evidence that many within the establishment believe it to be appropriate, and even noble.

Sadly, today I find myself in a similar quandary regarding our representatives in Washington. I'm not talking about the died-in-the-wool marxists that no longer even think that making a pretense of being something else is necessary. The quandary has to do with, primarily Republican, politicians that clearly articulate conservative principles and then betray those principles with their actions. US Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) voted to end the filibuster that was delaying the senate Health Care bill last Friday. The reasons provided by Ms. Hutchison's office include speculation that the vote would have passed without her and that her vote was an expression of support for the troops due to the delay of a defense appropriations bill that was being delayed by the filibuster.

Senator Hutchison is currently engaged in a battle with Rick Perry over the Texas Governorship. Early promises to step down from the Senate so that her attentions would not be divided were broken for the principled reason that she needed to say in Washington and fight against the attempt to take over Health Care. Apparently we missed the fine print where it says "unless the attempt would pass without her help, or if it damages some other legislation that might interfere with her Texas Governor campaign." While Kay and Rick attempt to out-conservative each other in Texas, Texans just look on with a raised eye-brow shaking their heads. It is rather pathetic that neither of them seem to realize how ridiculous they look to real conservatives in Texas. But Ms. Hutchison's actions last Friday were nothing less than a blow at the very core of America.

The troubling aspect of this episode is how obvious the ramifications of it should be to Kay Bailey Hutchison. On the one hand we have a piece of legislation that stands to alter the character of America more than any single act since the New Deal. On the other hand we have a military appropriations bill that represents a fleeting opportunity for a hawkish politician to acquire some additional campaign capital. While it is extremely unlikely that delaying the defense appropriations bill would have resulted in the war effort being denied needed funds, it is possible that delaying the vote on Health Care would have pushed it into an election year in which it's passage would be in question.

Is it reasonable, or even possible to believe that Kay doesn't understand the far reaching impact of the current attempt to take over Health Care? This is the crux of my current quandary. Can there be any real question regarding the dramatic advance of statism represented by the Health Care legislation effort? There does not appear to be any possible explanation for any politician to be anything other than wholly invested in the Health Care "Reform" effort; either wholly invested in it's success, or wholly invested in its defeat. There is something decidedly unseemly about Kay's apparent nonchalance over her vote to end the filibuster.

A lot of conservatives are frustrated with the Republican Party today. The frustration is understandable. The GOP leadership is doing a poor job of spreading the message of conservatism. The GOP leadership is doing a poor job of defending conservatism when it is attacked by detractors. The RNC is still making poor choices and endorsing non-conservative candidates when viable conservatives are trying to mount campaigns as Republicans. Unfortunately, there are a growing number of conservatives that see the Republican Party as
'bad guys' that need to be opposed, when they should look at them as more of a wayward member of the conservative family that needs an intervention.

Some emerging leaders in the conservative movement have started calling for people to throw off their Party affiliation. They say that registering as an independent will send a message to the Republican Party and encourage them to change their errant behavior. It is true that a drop in the number of registered Republicans might get the attention of the RNC. It does not necessarily follow that the RNC would gravitate toward conservatism as a result of conservatives abandoning the Republican Party. The case could easily be made that the Republican Party would try to broaden is appeal to the center to replace the exodus from the right. In fact, the case could easily be made that this has been taking place to some degree since Ross Perot siphoned a large number of conservatives away from the Party in 1992.

Regardless of the long term effects, the short term effect would almost certainly be a shift to the center by the GOP. Republican primary races are among the greatest opportunities for conservatives to have success moving the Party back towards conservatism. In some cases the RNC leadership backs the less conservative candidate in the primary and it is very difficult for the more conservative candidate to overcome the RNC support for the opposition without significant conservative grass-roots support. In 17 states the only people that can vote for that more conservative candidate are registered Republicans. Independents can vote for whoever they want in the general election, but they are leaving the choice of the Republican candidate up to somebody else.

The irony of this scenario should not be ignored. The newly registered independents that were frustrated over the lack of conservative offerings from the GOP influence the system to favor the less conservative GOP primary candidate. When the introduction of a conservative third party candidate in the general election is added to the situation, things only get worse. Dividing the vote between conservative third parties and Republicans provides a significant advantage to the liberal in almost every case. So what is the solution?

The grass roots activism that is currently sweeping the nation is incredible. Campaigns are energized and conservatives are more organized than they have ever been. Any conservative candidate capable of winning a general election should be capable of winning a Republican Primary. Any conservative candidate that is not capable of winning a Republican Primary is almost certainly not capable of winning a general election. The chance of conservative success goes up when the third party energy and organization is invested in a conservative Republican candidate. That is not to say pick a different candidate or get behind the 'establishment' candidate. Run the exact same candidate that would run as a conservative third party candidate, but run them as a Republican in the GOP primary. If they win the primary, they will have the weight of the RNC behind them in the general election.

It is important for conservatives to engage in constructive activities that maximize the chances for getting conservatives elected to office. Supporting conservative candidates in Republican Primaries is one of the most effective things that conservatives can do to help re-establish conservatism in America and in the GOP. Registering as an independent? Well that might just be a 'Primary' cause for the continued decline of conservatism in the GOP...

For Chris Matthews, West Point military academy is apparently the "Enemy Camp" as he described it in the context of Obama's recent visit to pitch his Afghanistan plan. Matthews later offered an apology and tried to explain that it might not have come across as he intended. A review of the transcript puts the situation pretty clearly in context;

"I watched those cadets, and I didn't see much excitement, but among the older
people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of
warmth in that crowd out there, uh, the, the president chose to address
tonight. And I thought that was interesting. He went to maybe the
enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean that was, that's where Paul
Wolfowitz used to write speeches for back in the old Bush days. That's
where he went to rabble-rouse the we're-going-to-democratize-the-world, uh,
campaign back, uh, in, in '02. Uh, so I, I thought it was a strange
venue."

Matthews' contempt for the venue chosen by Obama was clear from his statement. In the audio it is even more clear from the tone of his voice as he talks about "the older people there". He seems almost irritated that the audience wasn't excited to be in the presence of the President. For Bush to go to West Point to rally the troops to a mission that they would risk their lives for is rousing the 'rabble' in the mind of Chris Matthews. Sad.

It is no secret that there is little love lost between Barack Obama and the men and women that wear the military uniforms of our Nation. Obama's insistence on making decisions about providing additional troops and support in his own time and fashion is just an illustration of his contempt for the military. Obama made a point to show his generals that he is in charge and that their wishes and input are incidental to his decisions and strategy. Obama made it a point to show us all that he has no respect for the military.

Chris Matthews is un-American, and unpatriotic, and so is Barack Obama. They hold our heritage and the foundational principles of our nation in contempt. Their view of America is not American-centric. Their world view is post-American. The left bristled at the questions regarding their patriotism during the Bush years. Somehow it has become uncouth to question someone's patriotism or love of country in present day America. It is now clear that this is largely due to conflicting definitions of patriotism. If we all agreed on the meaning of the term somebody would have no choice but to give up their claims of patriotism.

The basic definition of patriotism is love or devotion to one's country. But only in that grossly oversimplified definition could Chris Matthews claim to be a patriot to a nation in which George Washington could claim the same. We can be absolutely certain that Chris Matthews and George Washington would not share a common definition of patriotism. To the conservative, patriotism is the love for, and devotion to, the idea of America envisioned by the founding fathers and enshrined in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and other writings of those prototypical patriots.

In the past year there have been instances where those on the left have questioned the patriotism of some on the right for being skeptical about the actions of President Obama. For statists, patriotism is about devotion to the state, or even to a person that embodies their philosophy. Just as a conservative patriot that might find himself whisked away to the time of the founding fathers might be smitten by personalities that embody the ideals that he holds dear, so we see those like Chris Matthews on the left smitten by the personality of Barack Obama. This new post-American president in some ways represents a founding father of a new America for many on the left. John Edwards may have been right, in a round about way, when he made his claim that there are two Americas. When it comes to claims of patriotism we just need to ask ourselves which America is the object of that patriotism.

"Moderate" is not a new term in our political discourse, but what exactly does it mean?

The single thing that probably instigated this pondering session is the recent debacle in the special election for the the New York 23 district seat for US House of Representatives. Between the two major Party candidates in the race we had a liberal Republican (Scozzafava) set against a liberal Democrat. To the media this amounted to a race between a 'moderate' Republican and a Democrat. When the fervor over the "Republican" candidate's complete lack of conservative credentials ultimately forced her out of the race she endorsed her Democrat opponent over the third party conservative candidate. Did anyone notice that the moderate Republican was closer to a liberal than they were to a conservative? (insert cricket sounds here)

Arlen Specter, the liberal former-Republican senator from Pennsylvania was described as a moderate Republican by the media for years. When Specter announced his defection from the Republican Party to run in the future as a Democrat, it was treated as the most natural 'progression' by the media. Apparently, to the media, a fully evolved Republican is just a Democrat; they start as a tad-pole in the paleocon pool and ultimately achieve 'Obama'.

It isn't difficult to understand why the media likes this idea of calling the liberal fifth column in the Republican Party "moderates", but what is the deal with Michael Steele and the RNC? The conservative message of the Republican Party has been marginalized by infiltrators and the Party leadership keeps talking about big tents. Why does the GOP tent have to be large enough to hold all of the the ideological opponents of conservatism while the flaps are simultaneously held tightly closed against the admittance of a single one of the founding fathers of our great nation?

There are many that look back to the founding fathers and the founding principles of the United States and hold both in great esteem. How is it that we, as a society, can look back and revere a group of men that could never be described as moderates and still buy the lie that the moderate path is the path of reason? The men that founded our nation would find themselves on the fringe of our national political landscape today. It is hard to imagine that they would be able to recognize the nation they left us. How is it that a very large number of modern Americans swell with the pride of patriotism when confronted with the example of our founding heroes and yet strive constantly against those foundational ideals in the voting booth?

We are at a unique point in our history as Americans; a point at which we will decide who we are as a people. Will we embrace the foundational principles of the founding fathers, or will we betray those ideals? I honestly don't know when the last time would have been that deep introspection into our national psyche would have revealed that we were the nation envisioned at the founding; perhaps only in that instant after the founding itself as events were set adrift on the currents of time. Even so, most of us recognize that the seed of something amazing was planted in the foundational soils of America. The fruit of that seed is now ripe and this is the generation that will decide to harvest the potential of that fruit or turn away and let it rot on the vine.

The founding fathers warned us repeatedly not to allow the federal government too free a reign over our lives. George Washington said it very well when he said;

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a
troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left
to irresponsible action.”

It may seem a harsh sentiment, but moderates in America today stand directly opposed to the foundational principles that were promoted by George Washington. Even though they may claim an affection for the founders, moderates have arrayed themselves against Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and the others. Moderates have rejected the foundational principles of America for a repackaged progressivism in the name of reasonableness. We have lived with the term for so long that we have grown immune to the fact that 'moderate' is just an Orwellian term for the harbingers of the tyranny that the founders warned us about.