Tuesday, December 19, 2006

What are you doing here?

We've moved! Since 2006 is almost over, and the election definitely is, we've found ourselves a new blog home: http://delawareconservatives.wordpress.com

What are you waiting for? Go there now!

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Chrstine O'Donnell netted over 11,000 votes

delawareonline ¦ The News Journal ¦ O'Donnell netted over 11,000 votes

Christine O'Donnell, who lost the Republican U.S. Senate primary, but stayed on as write-in candidate, picked up 11,127 votes, election officials revealed Friday.
...
She outpolled Libertarian William Morris, who was on the ballot in the Senate race and received 2,671 votes.

She also outpolled U.S. House candidates Michael Berg, who got 4,463 votes on the Green Party ticket, and Karen Hartley-Nagle, who got 5,769 votes on the Independent Party ticket.


She did better than all those candidates who listed above and were actually on the ballot.

Crossposted at Gazizza.net

Monday, November 13, 2006

What's Next for Conservatives?

An NRO Symposium on Conservatism on National Review Online

NationalReview.com has a good discussion of what the path forward for conservatives should look like.

Lee Edwards,who's been in the conservative movement from the start (and is a very nice guy) makes an excellent point:

Conservatives should remind themselves that they do not live by politics alone. Conservatism is a way of life, of which electoral politics is only a part and not the whole. A movement that survived the unexpected death of Robert A. Taft in 1953, the Senate’s censure of Joseph R. McCarthy in 1954, the crushing defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964, the failure of Ronald Reagan to win the Republican presidential nomination in 1976, and the overnight fall from grace of Newt Gingrich in 1998 can survive the severe disappointments of 2006. Why? Because our movement is built on a solid foundation of enduring ideas, not the shifting sands of public opinion and the 24/7 demands of the mass media.


Conservatism is more than just a political view; we're not just about government. To paraphrase Russell Kirk, conservatives care more about culture than politics. Partisan Democrats in the media and the Democratic Party have written conservatives off before only to see their hopes dashed. This time won't be any different, either.

Bruce Frohnen makes a similar point:

Conservatism’s roots do not lie in facile slogans about natural rights and free markets — let alone angry, dismissive rhetoric that casts aside the poor and treats rich people as above the law. They lie in our attachment to families, churches, towns, and small businesses. It’s time to remember who we are and who we should be defending.


Conservatives in Congress started responding to the needs of big business and creating bigger government, forgetting that conservatism is about the small: the towns, the churches, the families. We need to remember who we're fighting for and why.

Finally, Stephen Hayward makes an important point:

Despite the electoral carnage last Tuesday, we should recognize a measure of success it represents: just as Republicans had to embrace “compassionate conservatism” as a practical political response to the Clinton years, many Democratic candidates had to move right in response to Republican electoral strength over the last decade. This suggests, incidentally, that we should look to support Democrats like Joseph Lieberman, James Webb, and Heath Schuler when we can.


Given the often unremitting hostility from Demcrats, it's easy for conservatives to identify solely with the Republican Party. This sort of thinking needs to be changed. We've finally got some moderate conservatives inside the Democratic caucus again. (We haven't really had one since Zell Miller retired.) We need to work with them as well. Rather than being a subset of the Republican party, we need to always work to transcend party lines and work with conservatives in both parties (all parties, really) so we can better achieve our ends. If we only work with Republicans, they'll take our support for granted and we'll never advance. Having Democrats who are friendly to our views is a plus for us as we have people in both camps ready to fight for us and our values.

Last Tuesday was a setback for the conservative movement, but hardly a death blow. We took some hits as the Republican Party moved away from our principles and we got caught in the crossfire. The landscape has changed, but not our fundamental challenge: making sure our nations grows in a sensible direction, while protecting our traditions and culture.

Crossposted at Gazizza.net

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

The Dems are going to party like it's 1998

And they deserve to. They should live it up. But keep in mind what happened to them in 2000.

This election reminds me a great deal of what happened in 1998: the Republicans got lazy, forgot their principles and failed to give the people a reason to vote for them. In 1998, they offered the voters a menu of the impeachment of a President and little else. This year, they offered nothing but a veiled threat: "The Democrats suck worse than we do."

Cliff May on NationalReview.com summed it up well:

The Democrats said: “Had enough?”

The Republicans said: “It could be worse!”

The voters said: “Let’s find out.”


Unfortunately, a number of great candidates like Ferris Wharton got caught up in the national tidal wave. One woman at the polling place I worked yesterday told me her husband was voting for the first time in years because he was so upset. I didn't ask who he was voting for, but I didn't think I had to.

Fortunately, there are Republicans out there who recognize that what happened was because the Republicans betrayed their principles. (And to a certain extent, also because the Democrats smartly moved to the center in some key races.) Let's hop those Republicans carry the day in bloodletting to come.

Saturday, November 04, 2006

Beau Biden: Too Good for Delaware

But Biden said his time in the federal system prepared him to lead the office, if he's elected.

"Prosecuting a case in front of a federal jury is like playing in the major leagues," Biden said, adding that prosecuting here was, "like playing Triple-A ball."
Source


Baseball analogies are something I can deal with.

Why would any major leaguer voluntarily go back to Triple-A? They wouldn't. They are sent to AAA because they can't handle it in the major leagues. Now that's fine in baseball, where a player works their way up through the system and finds the level they can succeed at, but Beau is on his way down after apparently heading straight to the show. Before we let him be the presumed star of our Triple-A team, why not try him in Double-A for a while? After all, he apparently had trouble with the Majors since he wasn't there long and is on his way down. Let's make sure he can handle Double-A before letting run the team in Triple-A.

The other thing that's frustrating about this comment is the sheer arrogance of it. He really seems to think he's better than this job. I've already voted, but this comment would have turned me off his candidacy if I hadn't already been. Mr. Biden, if you think you are too good for Delaware, then do those of us who love our state a favor:Leave. Go where you think you belong.

UPDATE (11:04 AM): This came off harsher than I meant it to be. A combination of lack of sleep and running off to do something else combined to be a little harder than I would otherwise have been. I apologize for that.

But, it's still clear the Biden the Lesser believes that this job is beneath him. Continuing the baseball analogy, major leaguers in the minor leagues on minor league rehab assignments are well-known for not focusing on the game at hand, not running out ground balls, not playing hard, etc. Can we risk that in our chief law enforcement officer? Or should we choose someone who's glad to be in the game and will play hard? The choice is obvious: we must elect Ferris Wharton as our next Attorney General.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Biden Campaign Gets Slapped

Link: Biden's attack over sex offenders is unfair, untrue and should stop

Like my blog over at Right On The Right, my political interests have been dormant for a few months. I think the negativity all over the map politically has afforded a lack of interest on my part. Not to mention the fact I've been looking more and more skyward towards where God wants me to be, and I think he'd kinda look at politics with distaste.

Nonetheless, where I work, we like to have on the radio. All of the sudden, Joe's son starts running ads blasting Ferris Wharton over some 800 or so child sex offenders being lost, and that it was his fault. So I'm intrigued, because I kinda thought that a prosecutor is supposed to prosecute, and after that the responsibility falls on the prison system, parole board, and other Executive Branch-type roles.

And the other impression that I got was that someone was enlisting that wonderful pre-election tactic, "The October Surprise." That was in fact confirmed pretty quickly, since this was information that was known:
"Danberg said Wednesday he learned about the matter this summer from police, and convened a meeting with Col. Thomas F. MacLeish, state police superintendent, and other police leaders."

It's unclear about the timeline; did the Democrats feed this info to the News Journal to help create some negative buzz, or did the News Journal publish this on their own volition? And if the News Journal did their own investigation, did they sit on it?

The link I listed atop this entry is an editorial from today's NJ. They scold Biden and his campaign for using their article to smear Wharton's record. This gives the appearance that they were in no way influenced by the Democratic committee to run this article.

So now we'll have to see if the mudslinging has already done it's damage. One would hope that this would scar the Biden campaign and portray him as a pol who will go to any length to obtain the position he seeks. I'm just afraid that there are too many people in this state who will see the Biden name and blindly give him the vote. I'm sure that's what the State Democratic Party and the Bidens have been hoping all along.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Why You Must Vote Republican

My editorial, as it appeared in The Review:

This country is facing a crisis of leadership. We are coming to a fork in the road. A choice lies before us.

The choice may not seem clear, but upon closer inspection, there is only one road this country can embark upon. We must continue down the path of Republican leadership. The country cannot afford otherwise.

The Democrats' "alternative" is nothing but dressed-up rhetoric, while Republicans have shown that they can take the difficult road and succeed. What the national issues come down to is how the Republicans have acted, and how the Democrats claim they will act.

First, the economy. In 1992, voters were bombarded by the clich�d Clinton campaign slogan, "It's the economy, stupid." This unofficial theme allowed Clinton to ride President George H.W. Bush's economic woes into the White House.

Right now, the economy has recovered since the recession following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and the stock market has been posting record highs on a regular basis. One of the leading factors in this economic boom are the tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by the Republican Congress. According to Investors Business Daily, since the 2003 tax cuts went into effect, there has been $14.4 trillion added in real wealth and 5.8 million jobs created.

How would Democrats handle the economy? They will run it into the ground, stifling growth and hurting small business owners, the main beneficiaries of the Bush tax cuts. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the most likely candidate for Speaker of the House under Democrat majority, has promised "a rollback of the tax cuts."

Rep. Chuck Rangel, D-N.Y., who would be the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee, was one of 205 congressmen who voted against the tax cuts and "cannot think of one tax cut" he would renew. This will cost the economy a good deal of growth, and will have a severe negative impact on the job market and your wallet.

Second, the war. While Iraq is not stabilizing as easily or as quickly has we would all hope, Republicans are determined to finish the job. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said earlier this year that "we can't win" and has accused U.S. troops of "killing innocent civilians in cold blood."

Murtha calls for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. This would be tantamount to an unconditional surrender and leaving now would only make Iraq more unstable and under the control of terrorists.

As for the wider War on Terror, Democrats have yet to put forward any sort of policy that would fight terrorism. This is the biggest international crisis facing the Western World today, and the Democrats have no plan. What sort of leadership is that?

I will be the first to admit that the Republican Congress has been far from perfect. It has not acted as it should on several issues, and the negative feelings toward it is mostly justified. However, the Democrats have not shown that they can lead.

In 1994, when the Republicans took over Congress from a Democratic majority that had lasted for 40 years (except for two years in the 1980s when the Republicans had a slight majority in the Senate), they had clear leadership and a clear plan.

The Democrats of 2006 have neither.

So what if the Democrats win? As well as having higher taxes and no direction on foreign policy, we will have a country torn apart by meaningless trials and investigations. I call this the "Lesson of 1998," or the ridiculous circus that the Clinton impeachment hearings became and how detrimental they were to the state of government in this country.

Though Clinton did clearly violate the law, the proceedings themselves became politically motivated and fruitless. In the end, Clinton remained president and actually more popular than before they began.

Why is this an issue?

The loudest Democratic voices are those calling for the impeachment of our president based on a loose confederation of assumptions and conjecture. It will not take much, but they will pressure a Democratic-controlled Congress into relentlessly investigating the Bush Administration in search of "the smoking gun" that can bring its most hated man in America down.

If the "Lesson of 1998" shows us anything, it is that they will never find this smoking gun. The trials themselves will turn people off from the political process and will divert attention away from the real problems at hand.

These are the stakes. Two years of meaningless, politically-motivated, investigation coupled with misdirected foreign policy and a shattered economy. That is far worse for the country than anything the Republicans will enact in the next two years.