Swinging For The Fence: How the California GOP Can Get It's Ass Back In High Gear

-I'm a conservative Republican in the most liberal and strongly Democratic of states, and I am fiercely proud of my place on the spectrum. That much has always been clear to those who regularly read my work. My ideological position, however, is also a source of frustration when it comes to California politics: while the GOP has a legitimate chance to reclaim the White House and a legislative majority on the national level this year, in the Golden State we risk backsliding into irrelevance. I'm bloody well aware I'm not the only one asking why. But I am concerned that I'm the only one asking why it has to be this way.

-On the face of it, the environment in which we have to operate isn't particularly encouraging:the Democrats have effectively created a machine in Sacramento to create a state-level equivalent to their virtual monopoly in Los Angeles and the Bay Area. I find it pathetic that a party consisting of socialists using environmental conservation as a front for their platform have more sway in San Francisco elections than we do-in the city where we nominated Barry Goldwater. Electoral regulations-regulations in general-are a nightmare, and the demographics do not favor us-those individuals and groups most likely to vote Republican or at least identify as conservative are fleeing the state for the likes of Texas, Arizona, and Nevada, seeking better opportunities and the possibility of escaping before their livelihood is confiscated to feed the voracious leviathan that is the state budget, which is already embarrassingly deep in the red. And the fastest-growing groups of the population-Latinos and the poor/working class-are decidedly hostile to the Republican Party.

-But that in turn can only explain so much. I believe the root of the problem lies in electoral lethargy. We are stuck with a permanent small chunk of the legislature that threatens to shrink as more of our traditional base continues to flee California's smothering grasp. And all we seem interested in doing is maintaining the status quo-simply pointing out what is wrong with the state and not bothering to seriously hit the circuit. Perhaps there is a token appeal to voters who would likely vote for us anyway, but I'll say this: Since I started seriously following California gubernatorial and senatorial races ten years ago, I can think of exactly two Republican running in any of those races who actually bothered to run a television ad: Bill Simon and Meg Whitman. There are perhaps a few dozen who remember that Carly Fiorina tried unsuccessfully to unseat the certifiably insane Barbara Boxer the same year Whitman went head to head with eventual winner Jerry Brown (if something didn't work twice before, why not try it again when things are even more desperate?); even fewer remember that Dick Mountjoy was our nominee in the race against Dianne Feinstein six years ago (and the odds suggest she will again cruise to reelection this year, too). Even I don't remember who Boxer's last opponent in 2004 was. It suggests that we've simply come to accept that we won't gain any ground electorally. We've accepted that we've lost the race before we've even finished lining up on the grid.

-And it's pathetic. The Democrats are going to have the chance to turn California into their own sociopolitical petri dish to try their multitude of "great ideas." And when the Golden State lies in ruins, any and all souls who could have done anything to stop the decay and repair the damage-or at the very least paid the bill-will be long gone and those left will not be able to wrest their captors from power. I've already written at length about how the Democrats have built entire platforms on the establishment of the underclass mindset with key groups of voters that will ensure them a permanent voter base and make good governance impossible. Rather, I want to inspire the leadership of my party to turn the tide and restore California to it's traditional place atop the pedestal. And the way to do that, standing on one foot, is: Build on commonalities and, for God's Sake, be proactive.

-As should be our strategy nationally this year, the economy needs to be our primary focus. In California, it will not be enough for us simply to point out that we're "broker than broke," as the saying goes, and complaining about welfare abuse-though complain we should. I honestly believe that black and Latino voters in California could vote Republican in greater numbers within the next ten to fifteen years if we adopted a policy of independent economic empowerment on the stump. Rather than simply decry the excessive amount of welfare money Sacramento lavishes on them and then leave it at that (which, to be quite frank, is a half-hearted strategy when it's pitched at it's intended audience of pissed-off middle and upper-class voters who continue to get the impression that their tax dollars are being pissed away-which they are), the GOP needs to actively go to the communities and demonstrate how the free-market approach will work to black and Latino voters' benefit and with it the sense of pride and independence that comes from being in control of your financial lives-something relevant to a Latino voting community that, by a 2-to-1 margin, said that the impression that Republicans were a "country-club" party were the main reason that they vote Democrat in spite of the long-term damage to their communities and their livelihood that does, rather than a tough stance on illegal immigration which most pundits and the fascists at groups like La Raza claim.

-Speaking of which-it will benefit the Republicans to stick to their guns on illegal immigration-but only if they can articulate the intellectual justification for it. Open borders hurt Latino communities far more than most people recognize-or acknowledge. Combined with the lack of entrepreneur spirit inculcated by existing state policies and attitudes, it is causing an economic stagnation in Latino communities in California that risks becoming a full-blown depression-which bodes extremely ill for California as a whole. Businessmen and community leaders-including pastors in Spanish-speaking churches-note the low occurrence of Latino ownership in small businesses, especially in farming, and also comment on a lack of ambition and sense of upward mobility within these same communities. This is disconcerting when you take into account that Upward Mobility is the prime mover of the American Dream. When people are satisfied with low-level labor in an economy where such jobs are disappearing and in a place where there is a glut of people who feel the same way competing for those jobs-the end result of California's careless open-border policy-the consequences just within this community are dire. It leads to economic stagnation, higher crime, and educational stunting. In other communities, it generates fear and resentment-which only makes things worse.

-The California GOP should place an emphasis on educational success. Native-born children of Latino ethnicity-who grew up speaking English as a first language-far too often go through kindergarten in California in the lowest quintile of reading proficiency, and then go on to be classified as English-learners all the way through high school. The values of prodigious study and educational application must be stressed as integral to success. Latino boys and girls need to get into colleges and leave with degrees to secure their foothold in the economy. But they must earn their slots in college, rather than rely on the devious machinations of groups like the Latino Caucus in the California legislature to force universities to accept them through racial quotas. Another problem that needs to be addressed is the problem of one-parent households. It is already a tragedy in my mind that too many black families in America are set up for failure because the father isn't there. It genuinely bothers me that in Latino households in this state are increasingly seeing the father abandon his responsibility to the mother and the child. A cultural acceptance of promiscuity is another tangent to this problem. We can't offer a solution-nor should we suggest we can, at least right now-but what we can do is get engaged in the communities and have honest discussions about it.

-Community engagement needs to be another plank for the California GOP platform-actually engaging the voters and finding out their concerns and listening to their suggestions as to fix any problems would go a long way towards developing policy that allows for the growth of successful and safe communities. This strategy was a key component in the revolutionary reform of the Los Angeles Police Department. And it ought to be something we run on anyway-governmental devolution; power to the people; government of the people, by the people, for the people-we profess these as conservative principles, why not actually use them?

-And speaking of principles, one we need to remember is one on the social front. Social conservatism is a force in this country for a reason, and the left's blatant disregard-if not outright contempt-for the concerns, worries, and objections of the social conservatives ought to be recognized as more disconcerting. But a majority of voters in this state won't acknowledge those concerns because they view us as soft tyrants. Witness all this traffic from women's rights groups accusing Republicans of waging a "war on women" when no such thing is taking place. It doesn't mean a damn thing if we're on to something about the cult of self-gratification that has a hold on young Californians; they will only see us as self-righteous and sanctimonious because of our attitude towards sexuality. Specifically, how to deal with homosexuals? Considering most social conservatives voice their objections to this lifestyle choice based on religious convictions, I say we keep two things in mind: firstly, remember Christ's lessons to Love Thy Neighbor and to Hate the Sin, But Love the Sinner. Remember the Christian ethic of tolerance-it's part of the foundation of western civilization. Secondly, while I agree with my more socially conservative brethren that sexuality is getting a tad too open these days, I think our calls for more modesty would be taken more seriously if we remembered our half of the whole "keep it private" mantra by not going out of our way to crane our necks over the fence and peek into the bedroom window. I think it's worth losing a couple of diehards to make inroads to the LGBT voting community by emphasizing the commonalities. Gay right-wingers exist here and elsewhere, I've seen and read the proof; I say, let's give them a reason not to be embarrassed about not drinking the progressive kool aid.

-Above all, though, what the California GOP needs, more than anything else, is a new generation of advocates. It might make sense for us to leave for the friendlier climes of the intermountain West or the Deep South, but we need to remember why our families came to California in the first place, and we need to acknowledge that the only way to stop this backwards slide into oblivion is to take on a herculean burden and actively work to change the political climate. We have an uphill battle against us. But we stand a much better chance of winning the battles we need to win-and perhaps winning over voters-if we not only go out and fight for our cause, but fight as happy warriors. Relish the challenge. Fight like we think we can win. Much as I dislike the cliche, it is true that a winning attitude can make a huge difference in whether you win or lose. So, I ask you, leaders of the California Republican Party-can you make my Grand Old Party grand again in the Golden State? I've given you my thoughts. The rest, for now, at least, is up to you.

The Problem of Speech and Ballots

The impetus that stirred me from my dormant state on writing about public affairs was the "raging" debate over free speech. Specifically, a proposal made on the floor of the New York Legislature by four state senators. These four argued for a "more refined" First Amendment, one that would make speech--defined in this case as any statement made relevant to public discourse and not the pointless nattering that tends to make up much of everyday conversation (say, for instance, most entries on Twitter feeds)--"a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated." In other words, freedom of speech ought to be a privilege granted and reclaimed by the state as it pleases, rather than a right.

The only thing that I find even remotely relieving is that this didn't come from the legislature of my own home state of California-and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if someone in Sacramento would propose this exact thing.

So, what is the problem here? It is that we are allowing our most fundamental right as free men and women-Freedom of Speech, along with Freedom of Religion and Freedom to Assemble and Petition, was elevated above all others in our Constitution for a reason. It is an inalienable right, given to us by God. The Founding Fathers understood quite clearly that, when drafting the foundational document for our government, that they needed to emplace the necessary protections against the government's encroaching on this. and yet, we allow governments in the West to whittle away at it day by day. What for? Two words: hate speech. Weasel words if ever there were any.

What is hate speech, exactly? To define it broadly, it would be any speech that could be perceived as inciting hatred or contempt towards a particular group of people. Some of it is rather blatant: in this country, we're familiar with a whole slew of words we use to refer to different groups of people-usually determined by ethnicity-in a derogatory fashion. With these particular words, we as a society have come to the understanding that these are bad and that anyone who uses them as they were meant to be used-it would seem obvious, but words do mean things-are often hateful people, just as people who use these words mindlessly-I can think of at least a handful of instances on Facebook that tend to occur on a weekly basis-often demonstrate a general sense of stupidity.

The problem arises when genuine criticism or satirical observations are made and people, number one, become insulted and, number two, feel it necessary to resort to censorship. Our society seems to have placed more importance on not hurting feelings than on telling the truth, often times because the people most likely to complain about being insulted when somebody says something they do not want to hear are liable to make a big noise and throw around a grossly exaggerated claim to an aggrieved status that politicians pay an acute amount of attention to. Perhaps the reason why we haven't been too serious about it is because we have this sense that it is part of our blood and that the complainers and perennially offended have thus far only resorted to lawsuits, unlike their counterparts in Europe, who, as several writers and commentators have been apt to point out, generally belong to one particular demographic, who have resorted to far more violent means of expression.

If most of us understand how important this threat to free speech is, and if most of us value our freedom of speech, we say to ourselves, then let's just vote the bastards out. I'm all for evicting clueless leftists from public office, but that won't be enough because it isn't the root of the problem. Like a sore throat or a horrid case of hives, it is merely the symptom of a greater disease. The problem, rather lies with stupid voters. Many are a product of a higher education system that is focused on indoctrinating young men and women with a worldview based on collectivist codswallop-of which censorship of the politically incorrect is a key component-and then extorting their families and taxpayers for doing so rather than giving them a proper education, much less a proper education on government and civic responsibility. The end result is that successive generations of the civically illiterate are more likely to reelect these fools and soft tyrants-who run under a leftist platform based heavily on the asinine concept of "positive" rights and will resort to such tactics as trying to "refine" speech laws in the name of protecting these "rights" and "protecting" the "interests" of their constituents. (The finer points and the necessity of an honest discussion on this are a different topic to which I will devote more detailed writing at a later time). So while we may vote the fools out, there are enough idiot voters-and their ranks grow each year-to vote them back in within the next couple of election cycles.

So, I propose a novel solution to this problem: how about we take a look at who is likely to vote for politicians such as these New York state senators (do I even need to mention at this point that all four were Democrats?), or have, in fact, voted for them, and strip them of their voting privileges on the basis that they are damaging the greater good of the community. They will not be reinstated until they have taken a basic course (40 to 80 hours should be fair) on civics and government, at which point they will be allowed to vote again on the assumption that their newfound understanding of proper governance, their rights, and their responsibilities will keep them from voting for fools and soft tyrants like the New York for ever again.

Before you choose to add your comments about how hypocritical it is of me to suggest we should protect one right by stripping another, I would remind you that, unlike free speech, there is no such thing as a right to vote. All the voting rights amendments in the Constitution simply say that the feds and the states cannot deny the privilege to vote based on things like ethnicity, gender, age, or even disabilities, physical and mental. The governments of the states have the power to take away your ability to vote for any reason they see fit (most don't, however, because voting, it goes without saying, is necessary in the electoral process; and yes, before you try to remind me, some states have a "right to vote" in their own constitutions). If there is but one reason to justify taking away the vote, then surely stupidity would be it.

Look, the solution here is remarkably simple: people need to take it upon themselves to be civically informed and, more importantly, to borrow a vulgar phrase I'm familiar with from military experience, they need to grow a pair. If someone says something that you think is insulting (which is different than being insulted), you should think about what they say and do one of three things: either you look at yourself and consider that maybe there is something to what was said and, perhaps, make a change; if you don't see anything wrong with what you are doing, then come up with an intelligent and thoughtful justification for yourself or your actions; or, if what is being said is really just not that complicated and is being said purely for insult (this is where those well-known slurs come back into play), then just brush it off (though a witty retort is more than acceptable as well). People can say some cruel things. But for God's sake, don't let your first reaction be to resort to censorship. All that does is make things worse and pisses off a lot of other people. And none of us want that. Do we?

It's That Time of Year Again...

"...so turn off your damn cell phones."

-I think that was the last time Billy Crystal hosted the Academy Awards (for some strange reason, him singing that line as part of his entrance has managed to embed itself in my memory for the better part of more than a decade). Of course, the man who does it best is back to host the 84th. The nominees were announced yesterday, and I just wanted to add my own impertinent thoughts on them...

-Best Picture:

--Once again, the Academy succumbs to it's bad habit of nominating films nobody has seen. My own refining and maturing taste in film does not permit me to write this off easily, as all nine nominees were critically acclaimed. Attempting to find the middle ground between critics and audiences, I come to the following conclusions...

-The Descendants to another George Clooney vehicle released this year, The Ides of March. Competently written, good cast, but it doesn't seem like it would really be worth watching a second time (I'll grant you I could be way off here, I've only seen one of the nine nominees). It kind of has that feeling that the studios wanted an award winner and told Alex Payne not to sweat trying to sell the movie to the public. Plus, I cannot bring myself to like George Clooney. He's too....how can I put this eloquently? Douchey for me.

-I didn't see The Help. Not my cup of tea, not my kind of movie. Seems like a compelling story, though. But I doubt it will be enough to stand out in this year's field.

-Both Midnight in Paris and The Tree of Life were critics' darlings this year-in fact, Paris has been called Woody Allen's best film since Bullets over Broadway. But both films suffer from the same problem-"What?" I'd never heard of either of these films until they were announced as nominees-and I consider myself a film buff. Once again, audience exposure was extremely neglected for the sake of appealing to the art types-a shame, too, given thatThe Tree of Life (again, what?) is the defending Palme d'Or winner.

-Hugo suffers from the same underexposure problem for me. Which I can't really comprehend, given that it's a Martin Scorsese film and they're saying it's the best he's ever made (last time I heard that was 2006, and that was certainly true then).

-Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close features a good story revolving around 9/11 and featured some A-list casting. But here, whoever was in charge released the film at the end of the year and didn't do enough to get the audiences into the theaters. Too little, too late, I fear.

-I don't care if it was based on a book (a true story, from what I understand). I don't care if it was a Spielberg project. I do't care if it was a big-budget Christmas release. War Horse reeks of "awards bait." Enough said.

-Moneyball was the one film out of the nine that I actually did see. I thought it was brilliant-probably the best sports film I've seen-alongside the documentary Senna, which didn't make the Academy shortlist-in my twenty-one years on this planet. That said, I doubt it will be the winner against the more artistically-inclined competition.

-My "expert" called it last night that the winner of the big one this year will be The Artist. Once again, I've never heard of it. But from what little I do know, I agree with her. Let me sum it up for you: This move, set in Hollywood between 1927 and 1931, was shot in black and white and, like the films of the era it represents, is silent. As in no dialogue. For a filmmaker to do that in today's movie world is quite radical and daring. I'm impressed. What's more, the acclaim has been almost universal for this film, which won this category at the Golden Globes and was also nominated for 12 BAFTAs.

-Best Director

--Based on my understanding, I think it will be between Martin Scorsese (for Hugo) and Woody Allen (for Midnight in Paris) over Terrence Malick (The Tree of Life) and Alexander Payne (The Descendants). The critics have said both directors are being nominated for the best movies they've ever made. Michel Hazanavicius is the dark horse in the race for The Artist. If anyone can upset this battle, it will be him.

-Best Actor

--Demian Bichir was nominated for playing a Mexican laborer trying to build a better life for himself and his son in Los Angeles in A Better Life. Heartfelt, but he has some stiff competition: George Clooney for The Descendants, Brad Pitt for Moneyball, Jean Dujardin for The Artist, and the wonderful Gary Oldman for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. If I had to say what my heart wants, it'd be between Pitt (damn good as Billy Beane) and Oldman (who else could play the lead in a movie based on the greatest spy novel of the last fifty years?). Dujardin will be a likely spoiler, though.

-Best Actress

--Glenn Close was an unexpected surprise (Albert Nobbs-channelling Julie Andrews, perhaps? She won her Oscar playing a similar role). Rooney Mara's nod suggests to me just how good David Fincher's adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is. But it'll be a three-way race between Academy legend Meryl Streep (as Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady), Streep's likely successor Viola Davis (for The Help-interesting to note, Streep and Davis were both nominated a couple of years ago for their performances in Doubt) and Michelle Williams for what I hear was a very strong turn as Marilyn Monroe (My Week with Marilyn-a performance good enough to nab Miss Williams a Golden Globe).

-Best Supporting Actor

--I know all the names but only one of the performances. Jonah Hill in Moneyball was nice to see; it was also the only nomination I have actually seen. Kenneth Branagh (My Week with Marilyn as Laurence Olivier), Nick Nolte (rules-yeah!(forgive my little joke)) (Warrior), Christopher Plummer (Beginners), and Max von Sydow (Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close). Since I literally do not know any better here, I'd say this race is wide open.

-Best Supporting Actress

--Again, same problem. Berenice Bejo (The Artist), Jessica Chastain and Octavia Spencer (both for The Help), and Janet McTeer (Albert Nobbs)...I think Bejo will most likely win, though I'm thoroughly amused to see Melissa McCarthy nominated for Bridesmaids. It must be something to be nominated for a role whose seminal moment in the film involves angrily defecating into a sink (I literally stopped and laughed out loud after I typed that).

-Best Screenplay, Original

--A tough one, but my guess is a battle between The Artist and Midnight in Paris. A Separation, an Iranian film, is the likely dark horse, though I'd like to see the Academy humor comedy (ha ha) once in a while and give Bridesmaids a go. Margin Call will probably have to be content to have gotten a nomination.

-Best Screenplay, Adapted

--Another tough one, and here it could be anyone's race: The Descendants getting a nod here along with three other major nods suggests the critical strength of the film. The Ides of March failed to really impress me, but I'll concede it was competently written and deserved a nomination. I've made my love of Moneyball quite clear, and I think it just might stack up against Hugo. I think I might want to see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy  win, though.

-Best Animated Feature

--I haven't seen any film nominated here. I don't however, like the fact that the Academy got hung up on technicalities regarding motion capture to snub The Adventures of Tintin, which won the Golden Globe for this category. I haven't seen Rango, Puss in Boots or Kung Fu Panda 2. I've never heard of A Cat in Paris. If I had to pick, I'll say Chico and Rita for using more traditional-style animation and integrating an excellent sound track into the film's central love story.

-Best Foreign Language Film

--Again, I'm oblivious to the competition here. For the record: Bullhead from Belgium,Footnote from Israel (the Israelis continue to demonstrate the strength of their own filmmaking industry in recent years), In Darkness from Poland, Monsieur Lazhar from Canada (it's in French), and my pick for most likely to win, A Separation from Iran, which also received a screenplay nomination.

-As for the remaining categories: I've already taken up too much space to go into detail here. I'm not helped by the fact that I haven't seen most of the nominees, either. I do, however, encourage you to check them out on your own. The show begins February 26th.

"So sit back, relax, forget about Mars Attacks!"

Notes From The Field

-It turns out that my assessment that the race woud be between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul proved to be inaccurate.

-Just a couple of days before Saturday's South Carolina Primary, the Iowa Republican Party announced that former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who had pulled a very strong second to Mitt Romney, losing by eight votes, had in fact won the Iowa Caucuses by thirty-four votes. The net effect of this was that Santorum saw another swing upward in the polls and the vindication of his intense campaign strategy of focusing heavily on the Hawkeye State.

-Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who served Congress from next-door neighbor Georgia, banked on familiarity and an unmistakably strong performance at the debates held in South Carolina over the past week to make his gambit against New Hampshire Primary winner and presumed frontrunner Mitt Romney. Well, on Saturday, the people of the Palmetto State spoke, and spoke resoundingly in Gingrich's favor.

-A twelve-point victory overall in South Carolina is Newt's big payoff. Romney was the only man who could win elsewhere Saturday night, and he took only three of South Carolina's counties, and never by more than eight percent. More surprising (to me, at least) was the fact that in several counties, Rick Santorum beat Romney for second place. Ron Paul managed to finish second in one county and third in two others, but finished fourth overall with thirteen percent of the votes. In many counties, however, the margin between Dr. Paul and the third-place candidate, whether it was Santorum or Romney, was razor-thin, which suggests that Dr. Paul still has plenty of fight left in his campaign.

-I was right about another thing, though. I stated last week that Rick Perry would be finished if he didn't get a strong showing in South Carolina. It turns out the Governor of Texas determined that the cards were on the table and that it was best to avoid another humiliation after Iowa and New Hampshire. Governor Perry suspended his campaign and endorsed Newt Gingrich, which narrows down the Republican race to four (there are a few other minor candidates who are running for the GOP nomination, but it goes without saying that they do not have any chance).

-If three is a crowd, as they say, then four is most definitely a race. For all the talk of how uninspiring and tepid the Republican field is (and, in honesty, a Marco Rubio, a Mitch Daniels, or a Chris Christie would have wrapped this up running away before the dust had even settled in New Hampshire), all of the sudden I see great potential for dynamic. Romney and Paul are being touted as being able to beat the President on Election Day. Gingrich can certainly add his name to that list-if the former House Speaker can safe his campaign from what seemed like certain doom-twice-he can pull off an electoral win over Barack Obama (in the words of one Republican strategist, talking to CNN about the Gingrich campaign, "Gingrich has been harder to kill than Rasputin."). And while I don't have that same level of confidence regarding Election Day with Rick Santorum, I'd definitely say he has a solid chance at the nomination. Three different contests, three different winners. Personally speaking, I find the competition (we haven't seen results like this since 1980) healthy. It will make the candidates earn their votes.

-I started my morning off in an unusual fashion by looking into Randall Terry's campaign. Terry, if you don't know, is running against Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination. Terry is also an outspoken anti-abortion activist. And the centerpiece of his campaign is a graphic advertisement that will run in select markets on during the Super Bowl. I'll say this much about the ad: it is not for the weak of stomach, and it reminds me why I am pro-life.

-The reason I saw the ad at all was because of a story on CNN.com about a blogger out in Portland who received death threats. Why? she-perhaps half in-jest, I couldn't quite tell-suggested that people donate ten dollars to pro-abortion causes for every Tim Tebow touchdown.

-Now Tim, as we all know, is a devout Christian who has maintained his virginity, done missionary work in the summers during his years at the University of Florida, and is a self-described pro-life individual. Now, while I will give the Portland blogger the benefit of the doubt that receiving death threats and extremely hateful mail is hot-headed on the part of the sender to say the very least, her comment was still insulting and in poor taste. And another thing comes to mind-the way politicians and politically active individuals associate their causes with public figures. When some washed-up, pain-in-the-ass rock musician complains to a Republican presidential candidate about his using their music (Bruce Springsteen in 1984 and, to a lesser extent, John Mellencamp in 2008), the press jumps all over the offending politico and mocks them for using the works of a public figure in a way said public figure does not approve of. But when people suggest that an evangelical quarterback's on-field success should be used to generate money for what is essentially a lethal form of surgical contraception (or, for that matter, that said quarterback should be targeted by a campaign to strip him of his virginity before he's ready to rid himself of it) and the press (and a good portion of the public) stays silent about it, it suggests that something in this country is seriously jacked up.

-One last observation: should, someday, I ever decide to submit my writing to National Review to see if they would grace me with employment as a columnist, I cannot help but wonder if Jay Nordlinger, Jonah Goldberg, and Mark Steyn will raise their voices in protest over the fact that my writing seems to emulate their styles so heavily. Well, they say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all...

The Rise of Ron Paul and Other Notes from the Field

-For all intents and purposes, it's a two-man race at this point.

-Mitt Romney has been at or near the front for the entire race since he declared candidacy. He has won the two important early contests in Iowa and New Hampshire. He sits with a fairly comfortable lead. The conservative voting bloc, which reportedly has been shying away from the former Massachusetts governor because he is too "moderate", are now starting to provide support. The White House is already trying their hand at smear tactics, painting Romney to look like the "evil rich guy." It's his race to lose.

-But by no means does he have this thing locked up.

-The steady rise of Dr. Ron Paul is actually kind of enjoyable to watch. The Austrian from Galveston, "Dr. No", as he's been called, is really the one in the catbird seat. His third-place finish in Iowa was considered strong, and his second in New Hampshire was definitely strong. With the seemingly-ever-growing support of Americans who are weary of government regulation, weary of foreign war, and weary of heart-stopping debts and deficits, if Dr. Paul does not take enough delegates to take the lead in the quest for the nomination, at the very minimum, he will have enough to put Romney on the spot and to take precedence during the opening days of the convention in Tampa. With that open forum, Dr. Paul will be in a position to add legitimacy to his platform-and perhaps have Romney make some compromises with him and his campaign in order to secure the nomination. Which, as Dr. Paul has said before, is his real intention.

-With Herman Cain no longer running, having been hounded out by allegations of sexual misconduct-which, quite frankly I do not believe are true and are indicative of an attempt by the mainstream media at character assassination-I increasingly find myself liking Ron Paul. My only sticking point is that he still does not have the statistical edge over the President in hypothetical match-ups. But that margin has been shrinking steadily for weeks. And something tells me that if more than half of all campaign contributions from active duty military personnel are going to Dr. Paul, my battle buddies may be on to something.

-Could there still be room for a dark horse in the GOP race? Yes, and I give that space to Newt Gingrich. Why? Newt knows how to organize, for one. But above all, no other candidate besides our two front-runners seems to be able to say something that makes sense so well. The highlight of the debate for me was what Speaker Gingrich had to say about unemployment benefits and "child labor." Say what you will-deep down, we all know what he said about it was true. And he was completely straightforward about it. Once you acknowledge that, the massive amounts of applause he received make sense. So, why would I put him as a dark-horse rather than say it's a three-man race? Because it's been well-documented that Newt has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth at bad times-one such instance set him up for one of his brilliant statements at the debate, in fact.

-What about Rick Santorum? I like him-he's quite right when he says the core of most, if not all of America's ills are the weakening of the family. And remember that when Romney beat him in Iowa, it was by the skin of his teeth-eight votes. Santorum's a legitimate candidate, there's no doubt about that. But I think that his candidacy will last until late in the primary stage and that, ultimately, he will not be a factor in the nomination decision. And why? Too many voters will be turned off by his strong social conservatism and will back Romney, Paul, or Gingrich instead (Which I find odd-The other four Republican candidates are all pro-life, like Mr. Santorum. Romney, Perry, and Gingrich, to my knowledge, also support defending traditional marriage as well. So why will Mr. Santorum get singled out for it? Because that's what he's built his campaign on.).

-Rick Perry? I'll be blunt-I think he's screwed. Much as I admire his federalism, his economics, and his defense plan, Governor Perry has not been able to translate the hype into tangible results. There's another problem-the mainstream media have fished out their "All Republicans from Texas are Dumb" pickle from the jar and have pretty much beaten him to death with it. Unless Perry can pull a strong showing in South Carolina-which he has essentially bet the farm on-I do not think his campaign will survive through February.

-Jon Huntsman had an interesting idea: he would campaign heavily in one state to try and get a strong showing to inject himself into the heart of the campaign. He borrowed it from Rick Santorum. He made just one error: he picked the wrong state.

-No offense to the good people of the Granite State-the most free state in the Union, according to a recent report-but Huntsman should have taken Santorum's lead and focused on Iowa, which came first. Santorum's strategy worked because he put his focus on the first contest and used it to successively build. Huntsman chose New Hampshire thinking the same tactic would work there. Two problems with that: One, it's in the backyard of the front-runner, who was widely expected to (and did) win easily. Two, he didn't anticipate that voter and media attention might be focused on another candidate going into the primary-which was Santorum. Huntsman condemned himself to backmarker status the moment he decided to ignore Iowa. His exit from the race-and endorsement of Romney-was predictable and probably expected.

-Now, to focus on the other side for a little bit...

-If you ever wonder why so many of us on the Right cling to Fox News-even though, in my own opinion, it's rather too tabloidesqe and sensationalistic-cable TV's equivalent of theNew York Post (which happens to be a News Corp subsidiary, just like Fox)-just take a look at the recent issue of Newsweek that has been so successful in stirring up a mess. Right there on the cover:

"Why are Obama's Critics So Dumb?"

Maybe Andrew Sullivan (one of the writers of the article responsible for the offending headline) had a point. But the fact is almost all of us saw that as Newsweek saying: "You cannot criticize President Obama from the Right without being an idiot." Why? Is it because the mental picture we get of these critics is of a white, middle-aged, middle-class male from the Midwest? What else would you expect for such a condescending statement? The mainstream media is hopelessly in the tank with the American Left. They have the audacity to criticize News Corp for giving money to the Republicans and then whine when their ratings and subscription numbers drop while News Corp successfully weathers the storm. Now, I'll throw Newsweek a bone and acknowledge that the anti-Obama movement has attracted some of the wrong people for the wrong reasons. The Left has had instances of this, too. But you cannot expect people to stay with you or to trust you when you declare that you think you're better than your audience. That has a way of driving people off to find someone or something more relatable. Just a thought.

-I groaned a little at the Democrats' decision to hold the final night of their convention at Bank of America Stadium. I'll grant them they made a bold move deciding to piss off the unions and host the convention in Charlotte, a city in a right-leaning state-something akin to the Republicans convening in San Francisco (which they did, back in the Goldwater year of 1964). But this whole idea that they need to pack their mob into a football stadium as though Time Warner Center-which they will have free reign over for that week-wasn't good enough reminds me of President Obama's decision to hold his nomination acceptance speech at Invesco Field in Denver-it seemed bombastic and dopey and gave me the impression that Candidate and Committee were full of themselves. And it seems to me that they're just setting themselves up for that again.

-Perhaps they feel the need to, though-a report came out earlier this week that said that President Obama's poll numbers closely matched a pattern-those of presidential incumbents who went on to lose re-election.

-Lastly, I love a debate, but I don't like the debates being held for the Republican candidates. We've held entirely too many of them over the past year, and I don't like the fact that members of the mainstream media-rather than an independent party-are moderating them. The way I see it, no matter which candidate answers the question, the press will make him out to be a fool.

(Oh, one more thing-a plea to Mr. Rupert Murdoch and News Corp-I appreciate your efforts to make a cable news network that is friendly to the Right. But if you are looking for a newspaper to model your channel on, might I suggest switching from a New York Post-style of broadcasting to a Wall Street Journal style? I'll read the Post if I want a scandal or a smartass headline. I read the Journal when I want serious news-that's the style you should go for with television. You wouldn't lose your core audience at it would be a hell of a lot harder for the folks at MSNBC and CNN to paint your channel as "stupid." Just a thought.)

Go For It.

(With the New Hampshire Primary looming large on this week's horizon, I figured it might be good to write on a different subject or two to cleanse the palate and provide some mental refreshment-for you and me-before going headlong into following the start of what will no doubt be a hectic political year.)

Earlier this afternoon, I read something. Simple phrase; very straightforward, yet quite poignant. Which made the fact I found it on a humor website seem a tad ironic. But all the same-here's the statement in question (I've modified it slightly to correct the grammar and punctuation):

-"Don't ever let someone tell you that you can't do something. Not even me. You've got a dream, you've got to protect it. If people can't do something themselves, they want to tell you that you can't do it. If you want something, go get it. Period."

That last sentence got to me-If you want something, go get it. It made me stop and think-"What do I want from myself? What do I want for myself?"

Never mind material possessions for this discussion-because I don't fling money on alcohol, tobacco, or any of the myriad petty pleasures of most men my age, I actually have the money to spend on the things I actually want-say, an Apple MacBook, or a Volkswagen. I'm not too concerned with those-I love that I have them, don't get me wrong, but in the end, these are just things. They perform a function. That's all. What concerns me here are deeper wants, more profound desires. So bear with me here.

I could say what I want from myself is to be successful. But that's common; quite frankly, everybody ought to strive for success. What I really want for myself is to make a difference in my world. A positive difference. The avenue that I see for that lies in politics, so I've set my career goal for the Senate. I don't know of any Senator, President, or Supreme Court Justice in the last fifty years or so besides Harry S Truman who has not reached one of those positions without a college degree. A degree of some kind is essentially a prerequisite these days to get any kind of job beyond those most base and banal of employment offerings, and my parents and teachers did not groom me to be content with being an assistant manager at a fast food franchise.

But a college education carries a heavy cost. And I'm not amenable to the idea of spending the first decade of my professional life paying off a college loan. So I made a surprising decision and joined the military a little over two years ago.

My decision is a logical and foresighted one in terms of how it will ultimately play out. But right now, it has been two years of a great degree of self-denial. I was among the top students when I graduated high school. Now I've consigned myself to falling four years behind the power curve. Living a fairly regimented and tiring life. Being away from family. Social life thrown into discombobulation. Relationships interrupted. It's difficult at times not to feel resentful about a lot of it.

Most times, I do what everybody ought to do, and I soldier on. Remembering just how much I've learned about life in these past two years usually helps me keep my focus. But, just like everyone else, I have my moments where I stop and I ask, "Is it worth all this?"

That's actually a question to keep in the back of your mind. All these ambitions and aspirations-things that will acquire the prestige that I seem to adore-my name on books, on street signs, and on the hearts and minds of people everywhere-yeah, it's nice. It's something to shoot for. But I do believe it means nothing if you neglect your personal relationships. Much as I want to make my family name known in this world and leave behind fame, fortune, and countless other gifts to a family of my own someday, I, ultimately, would take a happy family over that if I really had to choose it.

I've made no secret-perhaps to my own detriment-that I do not wish to be lonely all my life. My sole "new year's resolution" was that I would not be single by the time January 1st, 2013 came around. A confession: the want hurts. I have those most basic desires of any human being-to want, to be wanted, to hold and be held, and so on-and I have been forced to acknowledge that they take a greater grip on me as time goes on. It drives me mad that I don't do anything about them. What kills me is my belief that, if I asked, a "no", however gentle it tries to be, might be more than I'm willing to emotionally bear right now. And this dilemma, this internal conflict, can and has reached the point of physical anguish. (Think back to the time in your life when you had this feeling, and then think of someone else you know like me, and it's easy to see how verklempt that might make you).

In the end, though, I am cognizant that I am my own worst enemy. I am literally my only obstacle in my endeavor to find happiness by making someone else happy. Depressing, isn't it?

And then I read things like that little phrase I shared with you. And it puts a spark back in the heart. For all the annoyances and pains I've had to put up with, it would probably be wise for me to remember that my psychological endurance is greater than I give it credit for. And that a strong will is probably your most potent weapon in your fight to achieve your goals. Damn it, I have a right to get what I want every once in awhile. And if I have to use every asset God has given me, I will have it. I'm not going to ask, "would you be willing to start a relationship with me" out of the blue, right now. I know I'm not ready for it. But, one day this year, I will finally have the courage my conviction has long needed.

I suppose the goal of me going and pouring my heart out here is to inspire you to follow the advice of that silly little phrase. There's a saying, quite similar to it, that I first started hearing in junior high and, over the years, have come to appreciate: "You can do anything you set your mind to." Quite a few people-my father in particular-have tried to impart the wisdom in that phrase to show me that I could call on my own perseverance to overcome what I thought were insurmountable obstacles. The meaningful things in life are out there. You have a right to want them. You have the tools within yourself to get them. A rationalist I may consider myself-follow your head, because you can't argue with the facts-but I can't help but see the truth in the late Steve Jobs's piece of advice to Stanford graduates: "(H)ave the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary."

So, if you want something (or someone, if that's the case), go for it. And be damned if anyone should try to stop you.

A Quick Gripe on Taxes

-Last night, while watching a local news broadcast for the first time in what must have been five months, a brief survey conducted by the channel was brought up regarding why people don't like taxes. The majority of those in the survey body said their main reason for hating taxes was because they thought the rich don't pay enough.

-I simply wanted to provide a friendly reminder that this is a mistaken (not to mention hypocritical) belief.

-Half the people in this nation, in effect, do not pay income taxes. But they are not from the rich. Quite the opposite. The top fifty percent of taxpayers in the United States provide 96% of the Federal Government's tax revenues. The remainder typically tend to use the programs we've been funding with those tax dollars.

-People who live on the public dole and ultimately do not contribute to to the source funding do not have a right to complain about those who actually pay taxes. Government-subsidized welfare was never a really good idea, and income taxation is theft. Stealing from someone simply because their salary has six figures and because they can afford to buy an Audi and send their kid to a good school and you're not having one does not justify your taking from him. His gains did not come at your expense. This last point being the thing far too many Americans are either willfully ignoring due to their subscription to the politics of envy or simply just fail to understand.