Stick a Fork in the RNC

Take a good look. It's The Statement. The one to which all politicians resort whenever they've been caught being naughty.

Of course they always staff it out. Michael Steele will not "dignify" this atrocious claim with a direct response. His director of communications will do that for him. The smart money says you never directly acknowledge the problems in your own house. This makes you somehow "above" the fray.

Ridiculous. Michael Steele presides over a party that is bleeding itself dry. Having turned its back on its conservative "base" (whatever the heck that means anymore) it finds itself losing the confidence of its registered voters; the very voters that it desperately needs to pull off any real victory this November. It claims to need a bigger tent, to be somehow more inclusive of fringe voters that have been artificially elevated to an ethereal status of near omnipotence at the ballot box. Yet the tent itself is damaged. Far from providing any sort of shelter within which voters may take shelter, it has been ripped, torn, slashed, and haphazardly patched back together so that it provides no cover against the force of even the smallest political storms.

So now we find that the machine behind the politicians is dirty. It's not just the grease that's getting old; there's grit in the gears, and a few cogs are even missing.

It's not that the charges themselves are overly incredible. Heck, this is what political machines do, isn't it? They spend money promiscuously and indiscreetly, then pay staff to cover their tracks, or throw themselves under the bus when they don't do a good enough job. Someone, at some point, had to see a receipt in the expense accounts for a strip club and should have raised the roof at that point. But they didn't, and we are left with Larry, Moe, and Curly pointing fingers at each other, or poking each other in the eyes, while the national press have a field day with the committee's ethical lapses.

Mark me: If Republicans do not fare well, and I'm not ready to predict any sort of significant turnover in Congress this fall, fingers will correctly point back to this incident as the beginning of the end. It won't be the failure to prevent health care reform, it won't be the decided lack of economic recovery in the face of stimulus after stimulus, and it certainly won't be Sarah Palin. It will be the complete failure of the RNC to provide any meaningful support or direction to its candidates.

In fact, I might even go out on a limb here and say that if (IF) Republicans do at all well in the upcoming elections, it will be because they did so despite the best efforts of the RNC. Michelle Malkin has a running meme of "RNC Rejection Slips" where people who are disgusted with the RNC and its current direction are sending back requests for donations with all sorts of reasons why the committee doesn't deserve their hard-earned money. Their reasons largely echo my own: the committee has demonstrated time and time again that they have no interest in fronting for true conservatives. They seem to have pinned all their hopes on moderates who will give them plenty of rope with which to hang themselves. This is why we have so many "representatives" who refuse to represent my particular interests: secured borders; fiscal conservatism; a return to constitutional limits of government power.

The RNC is more than done. They are toast.

Memo to McCain

Okay, John, you've got this pretty much in the bag now, and it looks like it'll be Obama unless Billary pulls off a miracle before the convention. I know you don't much care for the advice of conservatives (you're really starting to annoy us with your "conservative record" meme, by the way), but I'm gonna offer a bit more anyway:

This Obama kid... you gotta take him down a road he can't build on his own, John. You've made a good start of it by pointing out the difference in "experience." But this is a problem, really. Everyone on that side of the political spectrum (and most especially the MSM) is actually counting on his lack of "insider" experience to foment this "change" they all keep harping about. So you gotta do more than just point out the obvious now. You have to demonstrate exactly how this difference in experience could mean keeping this country safe from direct assault.

The Democrats have given you a wonderful gift here, John, and you need to exploit it. When the Pelosian cowards in the House refused to vote on perfectly good legislation from the Senate to extend FISA (Pelosi's disingenuous spin aside), you were given all the ammunition you need to paint Democrats as being unwilling to do whatever it takes to keep this country safe. Period. They even handed you the brush, John. All you have to do is supply the strokes.

Now's your chance. An Obama presidency means an automatic surrender to terrorist forces across the world, no protection at our own borders, and a refusal to gather whatever intelligence is vital and necessary so we can continue to thwart attacks on our home turf.

Oh, and one more thing. Obama's wife said something the other day... I know you have your head stuck on that Straight Talk Espresso thingie most days... She said, "...for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback.” Even your wife picked up on this statement, and the Obama Machine is already in full spin-mode on this one. But the fact is that what she said is felt by an alarmingly large portion of our nation.

You, Mr. Candidate, need to be out there listing and selling all the reasons why, precisely, this is a country in which we should take pride. You need to be pointing out our nearly universal outreach to many, many nations in humanitarian efforts. You need to show that being ready to defend freedoms not just for our country but for those of other countries is an honorable course, rather than an embarrassing curse. You need to remind people that, if they have democracy in their country today, it's largely patterned after our constitutional form of republican government that we implemented here over two hundred years ago. You need to help them understand that advances in science and industry that were spearheaded by the United States have held benefits for nearly every nation on earth over the years. This is not a nation of which to be ashamed, John, and you need to be throwing that in the faces of our esteemed opposition. Have we made mistakes? Certainly. Is there any nation on earth today that can claim never to have made any? Absolutely not. If we have our faults, we try to learn from them.

You might even want to bring up ol' Fidel down there in Cuba. Forty-nine years later, and people have a hard time articulating how, exactly, their country is better off for his leadership. If you disagree with Cuban leadership, you risk ending up in prison or worse. In this country, if you don't like your leadership, you at least have an opportunity to vote them out every few years. Cubans have no such guarantees. You can't get a permit in Cuba to "assemble peaceably," especially if your real purpose is to storm your nation's capital and parade around half naked to make a point. Try that in Cuba and you receive a whole new understanding of what "torture" really means. (Hint: it has nothing to do with "waterboarding.")

Time to put on the ol' smock, Mr. McCain. You can't afford to waste any time between now and November.

Okay, If I Hafta Support McCain...

... I'm sure not letting him off the hook. No conservative should do that. We need to be extremely bothersome flies buzzing around his head at all times. Keep the pressure on him to make some changes that will make him — if not acceptable — at least more palatable to a goodly portion of the GOP. Here's a few items off the top of my admittedly pointed head:

1. Clean House, Senator

Two names, John: Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio. In politics, perception is reality, and they've gotta go if you want to be perceived as being serious about border control. They serve at such high levels in your campaign that I'm surprised you don't shut down every day at about 1:00 for a siesta. Might as well build your vacation White House in Ciudad Juarez if you're going to continue to take advice from Señor Hernandez.

You can't honestly expect conservatives to believe you really want to build that fence, John, with these guys whispering open-borders platitudes in your ears all the time.

2. You're Getting Cranky With the Wrong People

Particularly, you need to quit chewing out conservatives who happen to disagree with you, and quit being so nice to Madame Clinton. Look, we just can't tell at this point whom you will be opposing in November, but fer Pete's sake, GO AFTER 'EM. Don't yarn about how "civilized" a campaign you would run if Billary gets the Dem nod... point out her liberal stances and how dangerous they are to the progress of the nation. Don't let Obama's color fool you, either... underneath that deep tan, he's still a politician, and politicians don't become politicians because they were nice to everyone, especially their opponents. But above all, don't let them get away with surrender politics in a time of war! You wanna be the battle-tough veteran and war hero? Great. Act like one.

3. Don't Forget You're Still a Senator

Even Clinton and Obama bothered to vote on the stimulus package. Right or wrong, they voted. Where were you? Trying to solidify your nomination prospects. Yes, sir, I presume to tell you how to do your job. After all, you work for me, remember?

4. Walk the Talk (and Talk, and Talk, and Talk...)

Quit telling us about how proud you are of your conservative record. We get it. You're proud. Fine. Just do us a favor and start acting like you're proud of it, will ya? Telling us to "calm down" does you absolutely no good if we find you constantly in bed with liberals in the Senate. You might have made a case for "compromise" and "bipartisanship" in ages past, but that was before your under-the-breath comments (isn't new media a wonderful thing?) revealed the inner-liberal you appear to have. You'd "draw the line at an Alito?" Not good, John. This does not give us great hope that you will, in fact, put forward truly constructionist justices for the Supreme Court.

While you're at it, do something about that temper of yours, hm? Metaphorically speaking, we can still take presidents out back to the woodshed if we have to. Job approval ratings spring immediately to mind. And you'll be facing an increasingly impeachment-happy Congress if you happen to take office next year. May want to keep that tucked somewhere in the back of your mind.

I offer these gratis, of course. My humble gift to the presumed nominee of the Republican party for 2008. No thanks are necessary, John. I'm only doing my part. Sorry I couldn't deliver these in person, but you're a busy man these days, and I understand. Even so...

Your move, John.

The Hugh Hewitt Contradiction

All throughout this campaign, Hugh Hewitt has been one of the leading voices in support of Mitt Romney. To that end, he has tirelessly pointed out the shortcomings of John McCain who now appears poised to capture and keep the GOP front-runner status.

Disturbing as McCain's victories are, there is an even more disturbing trend among the GOP faithful to believe that the party is somehow paramount to the principles for which it once stood. Here again, Hewitt serves as one of the significant voices in arguing for the sake of the party in November. Bad as McCain is, he argues, he deserves our full support lest the Democrats capture and hold the White House in this election.

But there is a moral problem with Hugh's arguments. Hewitt has done such a good job of documenting McCain's failings that those of us who now fully understand the man cannot in good conscience support him as President of the United States. Ever.

This is not a simple matter of taking our ball and quitting the game. I do not whine about what bad fortune we Romney supporters see in the race at this stage of the game, nor do I make this decision lightly. If the election truly boils down to a choice between McCain and either Obama or Clinton this fall, I will make good on my promise to write Mitt Romney's name in when I cast my vote.

There's a reason for this: Mitt Romney today represents the last (indeed, probably the only) chance for the Republican Party to stand up for what its base believes. To vote for McCain is to vote for a complete compromise of the principles that most concern me at this point in time. John McCain represents the worst in immigration reform. He has no (repeat, NO) economic credentials. His assault on political freedom of speech is inexcusable.

By the way, his status as "war hero" — which is unimpeachable — is not the reason why we should trust him to properly prosecute the war against terrorism. There are many war heroes in public office today, and many of them do not support the effort to win the war. McCain merely has the right ideas and has been unswerving in his support. This counts, however, as the only aspect of John McCain that I do support. When balanced against the other issues, McCain does not deserve, nor has he earned the right, to be the face of the Republican Party in this election.

Now Hugh is hedging his bets. Romney is officially struggling after a somewhat lackluster performance in the Super Tuesday contests (I did my part!), and Hugh is seeing the writing on the wall. McCain may not yet be "inevitable," but he is the front-runner and a force to be reckoned with leading up to the national convention. "Whoever the nominee is," opines the silver-haired wonder, "we need to unconditionally support him in November."

This from the man who has time and again pointed out the very reasons why a vote for McCain is a vote against my own conservative principles.

McCain, whatever he is saying today, has and will continue to betray the conservative base of the GOP. He cannot be allowed to sit in the President's chair while claiming to "unite the party." That phrase will prove to be the greatest political lie of a campaign rife with political lies in nearly every camp. I refuse to live that lie, as do many others who know and understand John McCain.

No, Mr. Hewitt, your argument is false and empty. If John McCain is the Republican nominee this fall, then perhaps the Republican Party deserves to lose — and lose big — in November. Perhaps we need another four years of watching the Democrats push an agenda of entitlement, socialism, and zero national security so we can awaken the Party to the harsher realities of a bi-polar nation.

Republicans have proven in the past that merely putting them in control is not enough. They refuse to learn their lessons, even when applied with a political 2x4. They fly in the face of the very conservatives who used to give the Party its distinctive flavor. Conservatism used to be the Party's defining characteristic. Now the Republicans are only distinguishable from the Democrats in their fights against abortion and terrorism. In nearly every other aspect of conservative thinking — including over-sized government — they have shown themselves far more likely to shake hands with their buddies across the aisle and ignore the voices of those who put them in office to begin with. These are not "Reagan conservatives."

When and if the GOP gets behind their conservative base and fronts a platform that defends, rather than compromises, our conservative principles, I will give them my support. Until then, they are still a long, long way from earning my vote.

Hewitt, of all people, should understand that.

P.S. Hugh, even your SCOTUS argument is flat: McCain has already shown contempt for at least one conservative voice on the bench today. Why on earth should we trust him to continue appointing conservatives? He wouldn't recognize one if they danced naked in front of him with "I AM CONSERVATIVE" tatooed on their chests.

Or maybe he would, and that truly is the problem.

'Twas the Night Before (Super) Tuesday

I'm sitting here in my living room wondering what our political landscape will look like tomorrow night. I'd kind of like to stay up and see the results, as much out of a morbid fascination as of a desire to see who comes out on top. In any case, tomorrow is extremely important and, contrary to my previous thoughts on the matter, California could (finally!) be the spoiler it has always wanted to be.

California has, in essence, 54 separate presidential primary contests. Each district has a winner-take-all result, so it's still possible that any of our (so-called) Republican candidates could walk away with a hefty number of delegates from the Golden State.

For me, however, all of this is really just a numbers game. The numbers of delegates matter less to me than the ideas they represent. In other words, do the Republicans in these contests really want a "conservative" for whom to vote in November, or do they want John McCain?

More and more, as I read of McCain's duplicitous double-talk I fail to understand how any Republican can truly believe that this man will support more than 10% of the party's platform if he becomes the nominee. While McCain tells the Pavlovians what they need to hear so they'll begin salivating and throw their vote his way, his recorded history tells a vastly different story of the man who would "unite the Republican party."

He's beginning to talk as if he's "learned his lesson" on immigration. So let's assume, for a moment, that this is true. Perhaps McCain really has the seen the light on immigration and will close the borders while working toward setting appropriate caps on permanent stay visas. So tell me, PLEASE, how his buddy Juan Hernandez figures into all of this. Can anyone really believe that this "one region, no borders" panderer is advising his friend McCain to build that fence? Deport criminals who happen to be illegal aliens? Establish firm guidelines on acceptable immigration reform and enforce those guidelines?

I'm sorry, but this issue alone is dangerous and significant enough to me that I will never support McCain for president. I know Hugh Hewitt and others will be sorely disappointed with my refusal to get behind this man if he becomes the nominee, but I can't do it.

And I won't.

Romney, 2008. Even if I have to write his name on the ballot in November.

When RINOs Dance...

...conservatives get hurt.

Arnold the Governator wasn't going to endorse anyone in this primary. "It doesn't help me, and it doesn't help the state of California," he said. Ah, but that was back when pal Rudy Giuliani was still in the race. Now that Rudy has dropped out and thrown his support to McCain, Arnie appears to be ready to do the same.

I have noted before that Schwarzenegger's status as a Republican is ephemeral at best. He ran as a Republican, but he's really a centrist. In fact, on many issues — notably including support for huge government — the Governor is more of a right-leaning Democrat than a centrist Republican. Perhaps it was marrying into the Kennedy dynasty that started that slide, or perhaps he's always been there and sticks with the Republicans because he likes their money.

Whatever the case, this pending announcement should surprise no one. Schwarzenegger is a power player, and the higher up the contacts, the better he mingles. Rudy was Mayor of a near city-state, and there is mutual admiration there. McCain is a RINO who sees himself as this generation's Henry Clay. The more compromises he makes, the better the independents and left-leaning GOPers like him.

So where does this leave conservatives? Right where we've been left for several years now: fending for ourselves without a single high-powered crusader for our cause to act as our voice in the political arena. Seemingly we have that voice in Romney, but who will act as his second? Who among the Republican power elite is willing to pull for this relative outsider?

No one. Oh, he has his supporters, to be sure. Hugh Hewitt is doing his level best to sound Romney's trumpet at every opportunity. Conservative analysts and publications such as National Review are talking in terms of Romney being the only "real" conservative candidate we have in this field. But the influential endorsements and glad-handing have thus far eluded Romney.

This can be a dual-edged sword. While it doesn't help Romney to be largely ignored by powerful Republican voices, he does have one thing going for him in this race. He has kept up. Try as the mainstreamers might, they can only anoint McCain the "front-runner" by virtue of his lead in votes and delegates thus far. But they can't crown him. Not yet, and not by a long shot.

Romney and McCain have merely exchanged positions in the race so far. With Florida awarding all 57 of its delegates to McCain, the Arizona Maverick (Side note: anyone remember Ford's Maverick cars? Were they lousy, or what?) assumes roughly the same leading margin over Romney that Romney enjoyed over McCain until this past Tuesday. But that's not saying much at this stage of the race. Whether the lead is 50-something to 30-something, or 97 to 74 (CNN's numbers), we're still a long way off from the 1,191 needed to capture the nomination.

It comes to this: Romney will do well if those who consider themselves conservatives take a hard look at McCain's record. The man is no friend of the base. Yes, he may vote "conservative" 80% of the time, but on critical issues of immigration and the economy, McCain isn't even interested in throwing us a lifeline. He'd rather cut deals with his liberal buddies in Congress. So conservative Republicans need to do their best to keep this man from attaining any office higher than the one he currently possesses.

If anyone doubt's Schwarzenegger's RINO status, by the way, just look at the ballot initiatives he's supporting.

We are not impressed.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin compiled a sample of comments she's received from people who say they'd rather stay home or vote contrarian in the event of a McCain nomination. Not me. No, I don't plan to vote for McCain, but whatever happened to write-in ballots? That's still allowed in this country, isn't it? I'd much rather exercise my right to vote by writing in a viable candidate's name than toss that vote on the ground. I believe I said once that I'd even consider voting for the other side (this was in the event of a Huckabee nod), but I've come to my senses. Yes, I believe I like the write-in concept...

There's Flipping - and There's Flopping

This entire campaign has seen plenty of shifting views and "flip-flops." Romney's own abortion stance has shifted from a support of Roe v. Wade to a more pro-life position. He freely admits to having "evolved" his views, although his personal views of abortion have likely not changed. As a Latter-day Saint the sanctity of life is paramount, but it's a personal thing. The Church makes no official political statement on this issue other than to urge support for that sanctity. Romney, as a political creature, has had to walk that tightrope between what he knows to be true, and what the people he would represent want to be true. It's not an easy path, and there will be that inevitable moment when you need to define yourself in one camp or another. On an issue like abortion, there's little room (or forgiveness) for waffling. Romney has made his statements, and it now remains to be seen whether he will stay true to them. If not, political retribution will be swift.

Contrasting with this "definition" of Romney is McCain's own flip-flop on "benchmarks" for withdrawal from Iraq. No one, not even the more staunch supporters of the Iraq war and larger fight against terrorism, want the United States to stay in Iraq longer than is absolutely necessary. The primary disagreement, however, is over how best to extricate our troops from this highly volatile region. Some extremists want a timetable — now — that will begin bringing our troops home immediately. Other moderate voices want to establish measurements, or "benchmarks," that establish success criteria under which we can withdraw without thrusting Iraq into irretrievable chaos (as opposed to the potentially retrievable chaos that reigns today, I suppose).

Romney has made statements recently that indicate his support of the benchmark idea. He says — correctly — that such benchmarks should not be publicized as this gives the enemy a timeframe that they can then manipulate to their own advantage. As he loses traction in the polls, McCain has now seized upon this Romney position and placed it in his attack machine. Romney, he says, supports a defeatist position. Benchmarks, he claims, are akin to withdrawal timetables which means leaving Iraq before success is assured.

Unfortunately for McCain, he makes these statements in the age of instant information retrieval and fact-checking. Within hours of his attack on Romney, two things happened: First, Romney's campaign published an immediate rebuttal showing exactly what Romney means when he says "benchmarks," and how they cannot be misconstrued by any reasonable person as support for "timetables." McCain, however, is not a reasonable person, especially when his poll numbers are slipping in a critical state for his campaign. Secondly, fact-checking has been swift and unkind to McCain. Of primary interest is McCain's own alleged support for benchmarks as reported by azstarnet.com a year ago. While he hadn't yet decided just what those benchmarks should be, he did state that they should be "specific" and that Iraq government officials "would have to meet them."

Sounds like support for benchmarking to me.

So the issue here is not really about benchmarks in Iraq. The issue here is what happens to a candidate who needs to resort to such low-level attacks in order to bolster his poll numbers. At this point in the race, McCain needs a lot of bolstering. The base of the party to which he has attached himself has largely deserted him. Can anyone wonder why? Consider:

• His campaign director of "Hispanic Outreach" is an open borders panderer of the most dangerous sort. Dr. Juan Hernandez has no respect for the sovereignty of the United States, and openly advocates the elimination of borders of any kind. This does not sit well with Republican conservatives. Period.


• McCain's work with Ted Kennedy to ram amnesty down our collective throats means that he has alienated himself from conservatives forever. In fact, on this issue alone, as a Republican he makes a better Democrat. They can have him.


• Both McCain's "Gang of 14" and the disastrous McCain-Feingold legislation that makes a mockery of the First Amendment show McCain's willingness to kow-tow to the left side of the political spectrum. He can cloak it as "bipartisanship" all he wants. Bipartisanship is only valid in war, my friend, and is to be mistrusted in nearly all other instances.

McCain's campaign is struggling now, and it's precisely because many Republicans are trying to revive their conservative credentials. Today, more than ever before, there is a polarization between conservative and liberal voices. Those who claim centrist or moderate beliefs are more and more coming across as merely being willing to compromise their own beliefs in the name of political cooperation. There are still many of us who are unwilling to compromise those beliefs.

It may be too late for McCain to learn, or benefit, from this hardest of all political lessons.

Fred! Exits Stage Right

(H/T: Wizbang)

Fred! drops out. A move not entirely surprising to some of us in the conservative hemisphere of the blogosphere.

I never got the impression that Fred! was ever serious enough about the campaign to make a viable candidate, and the early returns from the primaries and caucuses bore that out.

One telling development is his unwillingness to endorse anyone else at this point. If true, it makes McCain's political life that much more tenuous.

I still think Fred! wouldn't mind riding shotgun on someone else's ticket come September. The question right now is: would Fred! be comfortable in a VP role with any of the current front-runners? (Seems funny at this stage to still be talking of multiple front-runners.) Would Fred! be willing to serve with, say, a Huckabee? I can't quite see that, even with common Southern roots. Romney? Don't quite see that, either. I think Fred! regards Romney as a kid who's a little too wet behind the ears to make a serious enough president. I can see Fred! in Rudy's camp, though. They've both been prosecutors and politicians long enough that they would know how to play the game together. His non-endorsement of McCain, with whom he served in the Senate, is interesting. Does he not feel McCain has the ability to pull it off this year? Or is he just biding his time and waiting until Super-Tuesday before making any announcements?

Of course, all of this presumes that any current candidate would even consider asking Fred! to join him on the eventual ticket. Everyone who's anyone is already developing their long lists of potential running-mates, and Rudy may even be working on his short list by this time. If he doesn't win Florida then all bets are off.

This whole thing reminds me of second-guessing changes in the mission field. You could predict all you wanted, but unless you had a direct link to the same spirit of prophecy your mission president was channeling, you'd still end up surprised.

I plan to be surprised.

McCain Does Just Okay

So the magic of the Michigan results is not so much that Romney won — certainly this is important to those of us who support him — but the fact that McCain tanked among rank and file Republicans.

This is exactly what Hugh Hewitt and other conservative analysts have been saying for months now. McCain simply cannot count on any amount of support from the conservative base of the GOP. Try as he might, he cannot shake the fact that he has thrown in far too many times with the liberal factions of the Senate. He has joined with Ted Kennedy so many times, the two should just move in together. His Gang of 14 kept judicial appointments emptier than Kos's political threats. McCain-Feingold is seriously bad legislation that makes a mockery of the First Amendment. His nearly Gore-like fanaticism with global warming means that this theme will be harped upon in stump after stump, and his track record on the economy sounds more like progressive defeatism than capitalistic optimism. If we refuse to find ways to stimulate the economy in this country, we may as well go socialist. This would be McCain's Nirvana.

It then boils down to this: unless McCain can galvanize the moderate and independent votes in the next few states, his race is over. Ditto his future as a persuasive voice in American politics. He will always appeal to the moderate Republicans, and especially the RINOs, whose king he has become. But the right-leaning conservative base that has always been the dominant voice of the Republican party is beginning to show its impatience with this candidate.

Time to concentrate on Rudy.

Curmudgeon's Guide for Young Conservative Voters (California Edition)

If you're looking for the CGFYCV for the General Election of 2008, here ya go.

© 2008 - Woody's Woundup

UPDATED

Gather 'round, kids. It's time once again for Uncle Woody's "Curmudgeon's Guide for Young Conservative Voters (California Edition)" This Guide will cover the February 5th Presidential Primary election, in which the Great State of California deludes its collective self into believing that it is somehow relevant to the outcome of the national primary campaign. California hasn't been "relevant" to the national primaries, Young Conservatives, since 1849. That's when California became a state and immediately informed the approximately 15 million Mexican nationals still living in California that they were now "illegal aliens," all of whom voted in the next election.

Perhaps you are here because you searched for "Conservative Voter Guide" in California. Uncle Woody did the first "Curmudgeon's Guide" back in 2006, and you popped in to take a look. Uncle Woody is thrilled that there are so many gullible and lazy politically active Young Conservatives in California, willing to read the rantings of a middle-aged, card-carrying curmudgeon.

Having been thus forewarned, let's get on with Uncle Woody's discussion of California's ballot initiatives for February 5, 2008.

Proposition 91 - Transportation Funds.

Call this the "Robbing Peter to Pay Paul" initiative. The Governator, who hates those girly men in the California legislature, has decided that he needs "emergency budget powers" to move money from one fund to another. The problem is, he still hasn't repented for stealing $2 billion from the education fund when he first took office, and the chances of his moving money from the Transportation Fund to the Governator Humvee Fund will increase exponentially if this proposition passes.

Uncle Woody votes "Fat Chance" on Proposition 91.

Proposition 92 - Community Colleges. Funding. Governance. Fees.

For every proposition that we consider, there is always the "noble" argument. In this case, the noble argument is that since California raised it's per-unit cost from $15 to $20, fewer students have been signing up at our community colleges. So someone with letters after their name needs to explain to Uncle Woody how dropping the fee from $20 back to $15 will save the state money when in the same breath they want to increase the bureaucracy supporting the community colleges. Really. The "noble" argument is only a cover for creating "independent" community college "districts" with equally independent boards of governors. Uncle Woody smells more red tape, Young Conservatives. If California is really interested in helping financially disadvantaged students to attend their CCs, Uncle Woody suggests beefing up the grants and loans available to them.

Uncle Woody votes "No Way" on Proposition 92.

Proposition 93 - Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office.

The only good term limits, Young Conservatives, are no limits. Uncle Woody apologizes, but I've never really bought into the whole term limits philosophy anyway. Yes, it's possible to get stuck with a Willie Brown that gets in the way of everything and votes down every piece of legislation that ever makes sense. But it's a shame when we force good legislators out of office. Good legislators are those who somehow manage to find compromise in the face of political adversity, and this skill — in Uncle Woody's opinion — takes time, Young Conservatives. Three terms as an assemblyperson, and two as a state senator is simply not enough.

The real problem with this initiative is not that it limits a legislator's overall service to 12 years (from 14? Give Uncle Woody a break!). The real problem is that this is just a way for legislators now serving to actually extend their overall service because of a loophole that allows currently serving legislators to "restart the clock" so to speak.

Uncle Woody strongly recommends that voters vote Nope on Proposition 93. Uncle Woody also recommends that Prop 93 supporters change their meds.

UPDATE: The Governator buys the bilge (H/T: FlashReport). Key quotes:

I am endorsing Proposition 93, which would lower the total number of years a member could serve to 12, but also allows him or her to divide them between the houses as they choose. I am convinced that this would result in the people of California getting a more experienced, more independent Legislature.

Huh? "more experienced?" By going from 14 years to 12 years? Methinks el Gobernador has taken a few too many hits from movie bad guys. Here's another chestnut:

Former Republican leader Jim Brulte had the right idea when he said he was endorsing Proposition 93 because it will give legislators the confidence to say "no" to special interests.

Here's the "noble" argument I mentioned before. Prop 93 will shackle the oppressive special interests, reverse global warming, and eliminate world hunger. Perhaps there's a reason why Jim Brulte is a former Republican leader. I have absolutely no idea how limiting (or not, as I've noted above) their terms gives these legislators the confidence to say "no" to anyone, much less the special interests that got them elected in the first place. Ahnuld's steroids are catching up with him. Final fantasy:

When Proposition 93 was first introduced, I said I would not support it without a companion redistricting measure. Though some progress was made last year on that issue, we have not been able to agree on a redistricting measure in the Legislature; I'm supporting a proposal that was drafted by reform allies including AARP, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters. But Proposition 93 is good public policy irrespective of redistricting, and on its own, it will go a long way toward improving the quality of state government in California.

Of course, neither the AARP, Common Cause, or the League of Women Voters would ever be considered "special interests."

Now, pay attention, Arnie, because I'm only going to say this once: The primary reason why you haven't arrived at an agreement on redistricting is because it can't be done to everyone's satisfaction. Hasn't this question been around for, what, decades now? You think you'll resolve it before you leave office?

Yeesh. We return you to the Curmudgeon's Guide, now in progress...

Propositions 94, 95, 96, 97 - Referendum on Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact.

Oh, boy. Here we go. Uncle Woody thinks the Indian Gaming people need a new motto. Something like, "Indian Gaming - Creating a More Expensive Welfare State with Your Addiction." Uncle Woody has never been a fan of Indian Gaming (or, truth be told, any form of "gaming" that involves anything even remotely resembling "gambling"). These referenda include the ability for at least four tribes to 1) significantly increase the number of slot machines they operate, 2) set aside certain provisions of the "California Environmental Quality Act" (Uncle Woody had no idea such a thing even existed), and 3) presumably increase revenue into the General Fund by tens of millions of dollars for each tribe.

Uncle Woody sees a billboard nearly every day when he drives home from work. It's for the Morongo Casino. Uncle Woody (who apparently has too much time on his hands lately) has come up with a catchy slogan for this casino: "When Moron get money, Moron go Casino." Call it a cheap shot if you will, but this is to my mind the essence of gambling. Yet here again we find the "noble" argument. The tribes are beginning to advertise, although they do not reference these propositions; the commercials are romanticized notions of how gaming is strengthening the tribes by giving them self respect. What they leave out is that the gaming industry is replete with ruined lives. Gamblers become hopelessly addicted; families are torn apart; gaming workers are underpaid; only a handful of people associated with the casinos ever get rich.

Ask a public educator how much money he or she sees from California's Lotto. Go ahead... I'll wait.

Not very much, you say? Then you can understand why Uncle Woody is less than impressed with the argument that Indian Gaming pumps millions of dollars into California's economy. When you factor in all the costs associated with gambling and its effects on the average family, that revenue pales by comparison.

Uncle Woody votes a very politically incorrect Ugh! on Propositions 94 through 97.

Measure A - Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District

For you Young Conservatives that hang in the north OC (dude!), Measure A is a $200 million bond measure that would raise funds for updating this district's aging infrastructure. Oversight committees are to make sure that the money gets where it's supposed to. It may surprise you to hear that Uncle Woody supports this particular measure. First, Uncle Woody, although a dedicated homeschooler, supports public education. One might argue that Uncle Woody is forced to support it through taxation, but I also support the idea of public education. I hold with Jefferson's argument that an educated populace is a prosperous one. Educated people make (theoretically) better citizens. Beyond that, Uncle Woody is all for local control of education. Hence the bond measure is a good one, and should be supported.

Uncle Woody votes Thumbs Up for Measure A.

So, Uncle Woody, where do you stand on the candidates?

I stand for change, which, according to noted American political expert Dave Barry, means that I can vote for virtually anyone in either party. Well, the Woundup has already come out in favor of Mitt Romney, and Uncle Woody is still hopeful that he can unseat the other pretenders to Bush's throne. It'll be a long slow slog, but Mitt keeps stating that he's in it right through February 5. Uncle Woody plans to throw his vote that way, and keep his fingers crossed.

By the way, the move to hold our Presidential Primary in February rather than June really frosts Uncle Woody's shorts. Not only do we now have to have TWO elections to cover what we used to handle in ONE, but moving the Presidential Primary to February really only points out that California fails to have any real impact on the outcome of the nomination that much sooner. This will have only one salutary effect: Candidates will have to run through California much quicker than they otherwise would. California voters, who have ridiculously short memories, elected Governator Ahnuld Schwarzenstein in the vain hope of saving California taxpayers money. Now, we not only get to pay for three elections this year, but we're still fighting to keep our thermostats under our own taxpayer control in the foreseeable future. Nice work, California voters!

Uncle Woody's Bottom Line

So, Young Conservatives, I hope you're making this Guide only a small part of your own research. Uncle Woody does not pretend to be any sort of expert, political or otherwise, and understands that your opinions may vary widely from his own. This is part of what makes this country great. Rather than take Uncle Woody's word for it, Uncle Woody would much rather you simply participate in the process. Be informed, but make your own decisions.

That would make Uncle Woody happy indeed.

Ordinary Conservatives to Coulter: "Not Helping!"

It says something about modern culture that no one in high visibility positions of the media (whether news or entertainment) seems able to communicate without going for the "zinger." That one sound bite guaranteed to catapult them back into the limelight, where they will spend the next umpteen months having to defend themselves.

Et tu, Ann?

I have admired some things Coulter has said in the past because they show that many conservatives are not afraid to confront the insanity we see in the so-called "progressive" movement from the political left. "Progressive" is another word for "irresponsible" in most cases, as it denotes the kind of philosophy that worships at the altars of "choice" (abortion), "diversity" (gay marriage), and "immigration reform" (entitlement programs). As a conservative I find these things unpalatable, and I've certainly never been shy about saying so. Count me firmly among those who count entitlement programs as socially irredeeming, gay marriage as just another attack on the traditional family unit, and abortion as pre-meditated murder in most cases (not all cases, but that's a subject for a much later date).

No matter what my views may be, however, and no matter how passionately I believe those views, I see absolutely nothing of value in lowering ourselves into the depths of bitterness and gall that generate the kinds of filthy mud-slinging we've seen in recent decades in our on-going national debate. Vehemently disagreeing with an opponent is one thing; calling that opponent a "faggot," even indirectly, is worthless.

It's as if every nationally visible firebrand - conservative, liberal, and everything in-between - attended the same twelve-step program that I attended briefly in the 90's. "Speaking your mind, even if it's profane, is therapeutic," they said. This is the same kind of empowerment and enablement that has created an entire generation of comics who can't generate any true comedy of their own without resorting to what used to be shocking and vulgar language. This verbal dysentery has now spilled over into what used to be a reasoned and insightful discussion of the issues we all face. Global warming, the war, gun control, gangs; these are topics that need reason and insight, not an ability to out-shout or out-profane the other side.

Wanna know what effect profanity and name-calling have on Woody and his family? We have no idea who you are, because you have made yourselves irrelevant in our lives. Truly. Do you think this family ever has seen or ever will see "South Park?" Not a chance. Do you know how nervous I get whenever a movie comes out that we think we'd like to see but worry about it because it has Robin Williams in it? We generally don't see those movies in theaters anymore because Mrs. Woody and I feel a strong need to pre-screen them before we let the kids see them.

Well, Ann Coulter has just placed herself in the same category as Margaret Cho. One is a failed comic who tries to impress us with her "social awareness" and sewer-mouth, while the other is a failing pundit who can only express herself in terms of perceived liberal inhumanity.

John Edwards learned the hard way what happens when one allows guttersnipes to represent one's image to the nation. You become that image, even if that may be an unfair representation. You assume responsibility for the actions of those who are associated with you. At least, you assume that responsibility in the eyes and minds of your intended audience. Whether or not that may be fair, it's still a fact. Your reality is created by your audience's perceptions. You can't escape it.

I refuse to read Kos because this is a world that thinks comparing people with insulting bodily functions is funny, and who seriously believe that assassinating the Vice President is not only funny, but necessary. I don't need people like that running my country. I have a hard enough time trusting the ones that don't talk that way.

Which is precisely why, Ann, what you said at CPAC - joke or not - did absolutely no good to the conservative cause. We're supposed to be better than that. We're supposed to be able to express our ideas without insulting the honor of the office we're striving to capture. That is why the candidates are backing away from you. Sure you're an intelligent pundit. You definitely have a firm grasp on the issues that most concern us. But you're also a loose cannon, and candidates do well to separate themselves from loose cannons. So do we average, ordinary conservatives.

Pack it up, Ann. You're not helping.

#298 - Curmudgeon's Guide for Young Conservative Voters - 2006 Edition

Updated for the February 5 Primary here.

[As the election looms ever near, I suddenly find that many people come here having searched for a "conservative voter guide" in, I'm assuming, California. No doubt you were looking for a responsible, well-researched, knowledgeable guide. This is not that guide. You could try Flash Report, but only if you understand lawyers. Heaven knows I don't.

This guide is merely my own missive detailing how I - a lone conservative voice in the wilderness - intend to vote this Tuesday. If it provides any entertainment value, you're welcome. If it annoys you, I apologize.]

Election time is upon us once again, boys and girls. I know you all look forward to this election with as much joy and anticipation as that root canal you'll be getting next week, and Uncle Woody wants to share in that joy with you.

Of course, living in California, we have what we call "Propositions" or ballot initiatives. We have propositions because our legislature and governor are incapable of doing their jobs, so they need us to do it for them. There are only thirteen initiatives this year (lucky 13!), so Uncle Woody once again offers his "Curmudgeon's Guide for Young Conservative Voters" for this 2006 mid-term election.

Of course, this is only a guide, boys and girls. You may feel differently about some of these initiatives than Uncle Woody does, and that's okay. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrong-headed their thinking may be. Uncle Woody should also mention that he has not yet run this guide by Auntie Mrs. Woody, so his own opinions may change before we actually have the chance to vote.

So, boys and girls, pop some Reddenbacher®, sit back, and let Uncle Woody guide you through the mysteries of this year's ballot measures:

1A - Transportation Funding Protection
1B - Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006
1C - Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006
1D - Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006
1E - Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006

Uncle Woody wants to like the 1A through 1E initiatives; he really does. They sound like very important measures that will provide some desperately needed money for our crumbling infrastructure. Of the bunch, though, the only one Uncle Woody can support is 1A. Why, you ask? Because 1A is the only one that doesn't require issuing bonds to fund it.

Uncle Woody doesn't much care for bond measures, because bonds are really just a way of deferring the debt for a period of time, with no real guarantees that we'll have the money to pay them off later. And if investors got cranky enough, they could cause the state a lot of grief. Did you boys and girls happen to read the "Overview of State Bond Debt" in the voter information guide? Well, Uncle Woody did, and for him it reads like the screenplay for "Fatal Attraction." And Uncle Woody never even saw the movie.

Bond measures are, for the most part, evil, boys and girls, and Uncle Woody advises against them. Especially in this election. Uncle Woody really wants to know what the state has been doing with all the money that California voters have been giving or granting them for the past several decades. Until they can reassure Uncle Woody that they're really doing what they promised to do, Uncle Woody thinks they need to sell a few more of their personal Hummers to finance some of these measures, if you get Uncle Woody's drift.

83 - Sex Offenders, Sexually Violent Predators, Punishment, Residence Restrictions and Monitoring

Yes! Yes! Yes! A hundred times YES! Uncle Woody thinks that, in the absence of public castrations, tougher restrictions on registered offenders will have to do. The only thing Uncle Woody could see that would improve this measure is physically welding those GPS locators on some sensitive portion of the offenders' anatomy, but you can't have everything.

84 - Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds.

Can you boys and girls guess how Uncle Woody might vote here? NO, of course. Listen, Uncle Woody is all for improving our water quality. Uncle Woody has been purchasing bottled water for years now (since moving to Anaheim, where Disney has done nothing to improve the water in this area!), and will continue to do so for as long as local water tastes like something that should have stayed flushed the first time. Flood control? You bet. Uncle Woody happens to live in a flood zone, and does worry about that. Protecting our "natural resources" (Hollywood does NOT count), and improving our parks? Go team. But, here again, BONDS are required to do all of this. Hey, Uncle Woody has a better suggestion: Let's just add another 3 or 4 dollars' tax onto every bottle of beer sold in this state, and see what that does. You boys and girls shouldn't be drinking that stuff, anyway. You'll thank Uncle Woody in the long run. Really.

85 - Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy.

The fact that we even need such a measure bothers Uncle Woody. A lot. And the worst part is that it does not deny the performance of an abortion, it only defers it for 48 hours. Abortion is something that makes Uncle Woody very, very sad, boys and girls. Uncle Woody would much rather talk about abstinence, personal responsibility, and improving adoption laws already on the books. But no, we have to decide whether to make teenagers wait for 48 hours before going ahead with an abortion, whether Mom and Dad agree or not.

Uncle Woody votes NO. Not because Uncle Woody thinks his girls should have immediate access to an abortion, but because anyone would think that such an abortion is acceptable under any but the most grievous circumstances. Uncle Woody thinks we should be spending much more energy on helping our girls stay pure until they're old enough to truly decide for themselves.

86 - Tax on Cigarettes

See Uncle Woody's comments regarding such a tax on beer under Proposition 84 above. Of course Uncle Woody wants to tax someone $2.60 extra per pack. Uncle Woody is not altogether convinced that the money will end up where they say it will (Uncle Woody hasn't believed our money ever goes where it's promised since we approved the Lottery in this state), but Uncle Woody will think it's worth it if it drives one more person to for heaven's sake GIVE UP THE HABIT.

87 - Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers

Uncle Woody votes NO on Prop 87, but not for the reasons put foward by the oil industry. Remember Uncle Woody's basic premise: governments and bureaucracies need to be more accountable with the money we already give them. Taxing the oil companies an additional $4 billion with no guaranteed reductions on fossil fuel use is really just pie-in-the-sky thinking. In other words, if Uncle Woody's going to get hit at the pump (and, despite assurances by pro-87 forces to the contrary, we will get hit at the pump), Uncle Woody wants it to be for some actual project. Say, for example, the $4 billion were specifically earmarked for building more hydrogen refueling stations across the state, with a portion used to incentivize car makers in developing lower-cost hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. THAT Uncle Woody would vote for. For now... no plan, no vote.

88 - Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax

Uncle Woody is of two minds on this one, boys and girls. Uncle Woody wants you young people to stay in school, certainly, and Uncle Woody would love to know that you boys and girls are in a safe, moderate environment where you get plenty of attention from your teachers. This measure is supposed to raise Uncle Woody's property taxes by $50 a year, which would raise something like $450 million to be distributed throughout the state. Big hairy deal. Uncle Woody is pretty sure that $450 million a year would barely cover the costs of all those whiny commercials that the California Teachers Association put out begging for more money every week.

Still, even though Uncle Woody is a homeschooler and doesn't have union troubles to deal with, Uncle Woody also feels it to be his civic duty to make sure that we have public schools available, and that they are as current and safe as can be. Uncle Woody votes YES for this one. You're welcome.

89 - Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Limits

Uncle Woody smells dead fish here, boys and girls. Campaign reform laws have not worked at the national level, and Uncle Woody sure as heck can't see them working at a state level, either. Uncle Woody recognizes that holding candidates responsible for their ethics (or, more generally, lack thereof) is very important, but here's the lesson: If you boys and girls want to have a reputation for being honorable and responsible, don't become politicians.

Uncle Woody votes NO. The fish ain't getting any deader.

90 - Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property

Uncle Woody supports this initiative. Strongly. For the past several years, Uncle Woody has looked on in horror while people have had their lives turned upside down merely because a city wants to "revitalize" some portion of the town. Uncle Woody thinks that eminent domain has its place, but that place should only be for extraordinary circumstances. Certainly they should have the option of condemning properties that pose a threat to the health or safety of the community. But taking a person's property merely to "develop" that property for revenue is - among other things - selfish, greedy, and unnecessary. Don't be like the government, boys and girls. Care about your neighbors. Uncle Woody votes NO.

That's it, boys and girls. You can cut this guide out and take with you for something to read while you wait in line to vote next month. (Like that's ever happened where you live.) Uncle Woody is proud of you for voting this year. (You are voting this year, right??) Uncle and Auntie Mrs. Woody want you to be responsible voters. Of course, where candidates are concerned, you boys and girls are on your own. Whichever sex-scandal-plagued, ethically-breached candidate or party you belong to, you have your Aunt and Uncle's condolences. Do your best, and Uncle Woody will still love you.

Unless you vote against Uncle Woody. Then you're out of the will.