QOTD: Core beliefs

"These things I believe:  That government should butt out. That freedom is our most precious commodity and if we are not eternally vigilant, government will take it all away. That individual freedom demands individual responsibility.  That government is not a necessary good but an unavoidable evil.  That the executive branch has grown too strong, the judicial branch too arrogant and the legislative branch too stupid.  That political parties have become close to meaningless.  That government should work to insure the rights of the individual, not plot to take them away. That government should provide for the national defense and work to insure domestic tranquillity.  That foreign trade should be fair rather than free.  That America should be wary of foreign entanglements.  That the tree of liberty needs to be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. That guns do more than protect us from criminals; more importantly, they protect us from the ongoing threat of government. That states are the bulwark of our freedom.  That states should have the right to secede from the Union.  That once a year we should hang someone in government as an example to his fellows." ~  Lyn Nofziger

Principles vs. electability: the future of the Republican Party

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" ~ Mark 8:36 (King James Version)

I couldn't help but think of this verse yesterday as I filled in for Brian Wilson on WSPD and we talked about the recent flap over supporting conservatives or the best conservative who could win.

I understand that the role of a political party is to elect its candidates. But what we've seen over the past years is a tendency to look first at electability and only peripherally at the principles of a candidate.

I believe that's wrong - and it's part of the reason that the GOP has lost is 'brand' as the party of limited government, low spending, low taxation and personal responsibility.

There are many we can blame for this state of affairs, but blame is not as important as understanding why and how it happened and preventing it in the future.

In the aftermath of Christine O'Donnell's win in Delaware, individuals considered leaders in the party blasted her and her record. What they failed to understand is that the people - the Republicans - in her district (the state of Delaware) made it clear who their choice of a representative was. It is, therefore, the proper role of the party structure to accept that choice and support it.

But when the party structure and other 'leaders' assume to know better than the people voting, they are no better than the liberals we criticize for assuming the same thing.

So how did we get to this point?

We decided that winning in the short-term (an election here or there) was more important than standing on principles.

In deciding that a 'battle' at a polling booth was more important than a 'war' of ideals, the Republican Party has sacrificed the core truths on which we have stood for decades. And what we got in return was only a temporary success at the ballot box.

That temporary success was seen as a step toward control, a majority, more power. But it was really more like a toxic drug, giving us a high while destroying the body. So while we were 'gaining the world,' we were 'losing our soul.'

As a result, many people cannot identify what our party stands for and too many think there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. Today, voters will look at RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) and decide that if they're going to vote for someone who believes in large government, supports raising taxes and thinks government is the first solution instead of the last resort, they might as well vote for the Democrat and get the 'real thing.'

In fact, as conservatives increasingly became disillusioned with the lack of adherence to the conservative principles of the GOP, they either stayed home (as seen in the 2008 elections) or sought out others who still shared their values (as seen in the rise of tea-party and patriot groups). The rise of the tea-party groups didn't just appeal to conservatives, but to Democrats and Independents who also shared similar concerns about the overall direction of the country.

But with the future of the country at stake, these individuals are no longer sitting on the sidelines and they are seeking out ways to get involved. Sadly, because of the loss of the Republican brand, it wasn't the GOP where they found a home.

So what are we to do now? We have a choice: we can follow the misguided direction of so-called party leaders to 'trust' them as to the electability of candidates or we can vote for the individuals who represent our values.

Will we win every race in supporting Republicans who adhere to the core principles of our Party? Probably not. But we will win some - and then we will win many.

Conservatives can run on conservative principles and win. I've proven four times that can be done and there are numerous other examples. Voters appreciate candidates who stand on principles in their campaigns and in their votes once elected. While they may not always agree on the decisions, they will not find fault in an elected officials who says what they mean and does what they say when it comes to those principles.

In the long run, adherence to principles is what defines the individual - and the party.

The choice - and the obligation - is ours.

Ohio RINOs

My friend and fellow SOB Alliance blogger, Tom Blumer, has an excellent column showing all the machinations going on with the Ohio Republican Party candidates.

In RINOs, RINOs everywhere, he takes a look at several states where the GOP party leaders are backing individuals who really don't represent the core Republican values, and its especially egregious in Ohio where Gang of 14 member Mike DeWine will probably be the endorsed candidate for Attorney General. (Blumer's updated article along with current links is posted here.) As Tom explains:

Until he decided he wanted to be Ohio’s next attorney general, (state GOP chairman) Kevin’s (DeWine) relative, former U.S. Senator Mike DeWine, was last seen being repudiated twice by Buckeye State voters in a 17-month span in 2005-2006. First, despite spending $1 million, his son Pat finished a distant fourth in a June 2005 GOP primary race to fill an open congressional seat. That thrashing was accurately seen as a proxy repudiation of Mike over his participation in the Gang of 14 and other conservative-betraying votes. After yet another vote in November 2005 to stop drilling for oil in Alaska and a 2006 GOP primary where two completely underfunded challengers blockaded by ORPINO nonetheless took 28% of the vote, Mike DeWine lost his U.S. Senate reelection race against far-left Cleveland-area Congressman Sherrod Brown by a stunning 12 points.

Second-cousin Kevin and the ORPINO gang decided that this awful track record justified clearing the AG field for Mike, even though DeWine’s primary opponent Dave Yost had already racked up a 5-0 record in December and January GOP county endorsement meetings and had earned an intense level of tea party and other grassroots enthusiasm.

Nobody seems to want to own up to what Kevin and ORPINO did next, but all of a sudden early this week Yost, whose campaign slogan was “A Prosecutor, Not a Politician,” decided that he wanted to run for state auditor instead. Not coincidentally, ORPINO was also unhappy with the not-beholden CPA who had just started his own auditor campaign after Kasich selected Taylor.

As Tom concludes:

"...I understand that there is serious thought being given to going the third-party route in certain of the down-ticket races. I suspect that similar third-party moves are under consideration in other states and in higher-profile races. ORPINO and its compadres in other states will only have themselves to blame if this comes about."

I agree!

Random thoughts on a rainy day

* Average temperatures for this time of year in Toledo are around 62 degrees. Highs of 45 just don't add up - I sure could use some of that global warming 'believers' are always talking about.

Oh - and I use the term 'believers' as the opposite of 'deniers' since the whole global warming movement is so much like a religion it isn't funny.

And please don't start in on 'it's now climate change.' Having been on the wrong side of global cooling in the '70s and the wrong side of global warming in the '00s, they had to change the name just to remain relevant.

Yes, the climate of the earth does warm and cool. As I've said too many times already, if it didn't we'd still have glaciers in Toledo, rather than just the grooves they left (evidenced on the Lake Erie Islands)...it's just that man's impact on those cycles is minimal at best, and certainly not enough to justify billions and trillions of spending to try to influence it by a mere fraction of a degree.

Okay - next rant...

* Maine Senator Olympia Snowe voted in favor of the latest Senate bill (summary, actually) to put government even more in control of our health care. I've seen her described as 'the lone Republican,' an 'influential Republican' and a 'maverick' for this vote. While that may be the way the media and leftists want to see her, I can assure you that the 'average Republican' (if there is such a thing - in either party), is convinced that she is not exhibiting the core principles of the Republican Party - and is influential only in the amount of animosity her vote will generate among true conservatives.

Don't misunderstand my position on this - the GOP has a big tent and has room for varying positions. What makes us a party is adherence to the basic, core principles we profess to support. No one who supports this bill can say they are also supporting the core principles of the party.

If you don't believe and adhere to those core principles, why are you a member of the party in the first place? And if your votes on a fairly consistent basis contradict those core principles, why the pretense?

Hopefully, she'll find more to object to in whatever the final version of the bill will be and it will fail.

* I'm concerned over the actions of various groups in what should be private transactions. There are the local issues with the Manhattan Kroger store and the South Side YMCA, and now the national issue with Rush Limbaugh wanting to be a part owner of the St. Louis Rams.

In all cases, individuals who are not part of the transaction believe they have the ability to dictate what should/should not happen. While patrons of an establishment have an interest in the outcome, they have no authority in dictating terms - or, at least, they shouldn't have.

But that's not what's happening. In the local issues, the people believe they are 'entitled' to the services no matter what the cost to the provider. (Does this sound like the health care scenario???)

The YMCA and Kroger locations are losing money and cannot be sustained. But individuals interested in both cases have expressed the sentiment that the providers should continue to lose money on the specific endeavors because it's for the 'greater good.' Even city officials have gotten into the mess by insisting that because the company has received tax incentives or other types of support, they 'owe' the city and must do what a handful of citizens demand.

In the national issue, it has more do with hatred of an individual's opinions, despite the fact that those opinions really don't have anything to do with football. Because they dislike the individual and disagree with what he says, they don't want him to be able to participate in a free market.

Sadly, in all these instances, the targets have given in - even if only partially. The Kroger store offered free transportation to other locations (though that's not been utilized as much as Kroger had expected) and free delivery of prescriptions. The YMCA delayed their decision to see if the surrounding community was willing to put their money where their mouths are and purchase enough memberships to keep the location open. Today, the Rams said they're no longer interested in having Limbaugh be a part of the organization.

This bodes ill for our future, when political pressure becomes the standard by which business decisions are made. I'm not advocating that companies and organizations ignore the public relations aspects of their decisions - that would be stupid. But when the personal preferences of a small group of individuals have the ability to negatively impact the investments of shareholders and owners, we have moved away from the capitalistic system that brought us the success we have today.

Of course, that may be the end goal...and that's what has me more concerned - that these recent examples are only the beginning.

Republicans can't win when they act like Democrats

Having been elected as a Republican four times in predominately Democrat areas, I believe I have some expertise in this subject. My four campaigns were intense, targeted and every 'expert' said I was going to lose.

I didn't - and here's why:

Campaigns are won by drawing a contrast and offering the voters something different - and hopefully, better - than your opponent.

When Republicans talk about being 'moderate' or 'appealing to the middle' they mean representing ideas that are just like what is being espoused by their opponents, the Democrats.

When given such a choice, voters are NOT going to select a Democrat-lite candidate when they can vote for, and get, an actual Democrat.

This lesson was clear on the national level with John McCain and locally with the 2006 election of Lucas County Commissioner Ben Konop over Republican City Councilman George Sarantou.

In the national election, both candidates voted in favor of the biggest expansion of government - the bailout. There were other similarities in perspective and even the selection of Sarah Palin wasn't enough to give McCain the edge he needed to solidify his base and draw conservative-leaning voters to his side.

In the commissioner race, the GOP candidate said 'I agree with my opponent' more than he said anything else. Especially in Lucas County, which strongly favors electing Democrats, you cannot win by saying you're more like your opponent than not.

Many conservatives are concerned - and rightly so - that the GOP has lost its brand; that it no longer stands for the core principles of limited government, lower taxation, individual responsibility, local control and less government involvement in our daily lives. The reason we no longer 'own' those issues is because our elected officials have drifted so far from them. It certainly doesn't help that the Republican National Committee is more committed to maintaining incumbency than it is in promoting the values of the party.

And the voters, recognizing this, have rejected such Republicans.

Many times throughout my political career I had people disagree with me over my votes or positions on the issues. However, they always said they respected me because my positions and votes were consistent with what I said I believed. It didn't matter to me who was making the request - I first looked to the statutes to see if I had the authority to do it and, if so, I weighed it against those core principles.

Needless to say, I often found people mad - but not at me, personally, because they got what they elected. In many other areas, voters are not so lucky. They've elected "Republicans" who don't hold the line on their core principles and the choice is either to 'hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils' or withdraw from the process.

But it's not just the politicians or the philosophy, it's you and me and our willingness actually do something, rather than just complain.

There is hope, though. Many in the Republican Party are tired of being offered a Democrat or a Democrat-lite. They are forming new groups, on Facebook and other social media networks, and joining with others who are similarly angry. The only question is this: will there be enough of us to actually make a difference, and will we be able to use the tools we've seen the other side employ so effectively to do so?

Time will tell - but as the old saying goes, "If it is to be it is up to me."

Where have all the Republicans gone?

To say that I'm disappointed with my fellow Republicans on City Council is an understatement. Angry, irate, annoyed, irritated, livid, incensed, outraged...these are better words to use.

Our Republican Party used to stand for less government and lower taxes. I realize that, on a national level, many of those elected with our Party's designation have ignored these core principles for a long time. Even on a state level, there are many who've forgotten that standing by these core principles and reflecting them in votes was what those who'd cast ballots expected.

Because of my frustration with these national leaders, I've told the National Republican Party and the National Senatorial Campaign Committee that I was not going to make donations to them until they stopped focusing on incumbency and got back to focusing on the principles that define us and our Party. I would tell the callers that I was going to give my money to local candidates where I'd have more say in how they voted and more opportunities to ensure true conservative principles in government.

And then our four elected Republicans on Toledo City Council decide to vote for a 'trash fee' ... which isn't really a trash fee. It's a tax for the general fund budget, which has grown considerably over that last several years, despite a decrease in population.

Even Joe Birmingham, who'd publicly taken the principled stand and said he wouldn't vote for it, changed his mind and did so.

They've said that there wasn't anywhere else they could cut without impacting police - but I see that they didn't eliminate temps and interns. Their excuse for this was something about three-year contracts for such services. My position? Every contract has an out - and if our city law department was so stupid as to not build an 'out' into the contract, Council still could have reduced the mayor's budget by these line item amounts and told him that he could find the money for these two services elsewhere in his office budget. And Council didn't reduce the marketing or advertising budgets that I could see - so there was still 'fat' to eliminate prior to imposing a new tax.

Perhaps our Republicans are Council aren't knowledgeable enough about budgets to be able to analyze them and find the fat...Perhaps they trusted either the president of council or the finance chairman (both Republicans) when it came to the decision...Perhaps they're more interested in maintaining their positions (as president and on committees), thus continuing their alliance with the mayor and B-Team Dems to the detriment of our Party's core principles...Perhaps they weren't really Republicans to begin with...I don't know.

Regardless of the excuses they may offer for this decision, they missed a wonderful opportunity to stand for less government and lower taxes. We will suffer the consequences of this decision by having higher taxes. My only consolation is the fact that they, too, will suffer the consequences of this decision at election time.