Congrats Sen. Spector!  You have now saved yourself from being crushed by your own party, by switching to a new party.  You have told yourself that it is more important for you to get everything you want and abandon that which you said you would stand for, instead of doing what is best for this nation and going back to your core principles.  You are the one who helped fire the shot that created a festering wound in the American economy, a wound which some would call "economic stimulus." You Sen. Spector have left principle for power, you have left what you know is right behind and turned to that which is blatant opposing principle.  I ask you Senator, what have you gained?  Respect? No.  Love from your constituents? No.  A country that is firmly behind you?  No, all you have gained is money and election support via the Democrat Party.  For many in this nation, you have become an appalling example of Washington "politics-as-usual" and today you proved that you want to keep it that way.

Now the time has come, America, for us as AMERICANS to stand on principle.  Let us show those who have said they stand for something, yet only stand for themselves, that we CARE!  2010 is our opportunity to do this.

If we can defeat typical politicians like Arlen Spector, and if we can defeat Liberals who do not stand for what we stand for as Americans, we will show our government what we stand for and what we believe.  2010 is our turn to tell Washington what we believe, what we will stand for and what we will absolutely NOT tolerate.  Arlen Spector's party switch should not merely be a piece of distasteful political maneuvering to Americans, but also a rallying cry for Americans to stand for what is best for the nation.  For this reason I am ardently supporting the defeat of Arlen Spector, and others of his ilk, that choose to put their own personal political gain before America itself.  The civil action of the ballot has long been a method of the public showing what it wants done, and in 2010 we have that opportunity.

We hear day in and day out about the "evils" of the Republican party and the Conservative movement; in fact, we recently heard from the Department of Homeland Security that so-called "Right-Wing Extremism" is on the rise.  However, I wonder how the left can explain this.

Earlier today Democrat Representative James McGovern was ARRESTED outside the Sudanese Embassy for the second time.  Why?  Because he was practicing what he calls "civil disobedience" in protest to civil rights violations in Sudan.  The Liberal legislator was escorted out of the area by police.  (See the picture of the event here.)

Hmmmm....What are we supposed to call Rep. McGovern a "peaceful demonstrator" a "civil rights advocate" or maybe a "community organizer?"  Extreme?  Nah, only us right wingers are extreme...Secretary Napolitano, what's the term of the day? 

Uh oh!  Al Gore got caught red-handed!  Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee asked him, after putting forth evidence, if he would benefit from climate change legislation in any way.  She made no accusation of former VP Al Gore, instead she asked a simple question.  More over, she said that it would be an opportunity for him to "clear the air" from such accusations.  Instead of taking the opportunity to oblige Rep. Blackburn, and "clear the air" Albert Gore got defensive with her.

"...if you believe that the reason I've been working on this issue for thirty years is because of greed, you don't know me."  So said Al Gore in response to the Rep. Blackburn's question if he would "personally benefit from" the legislation that was being discussed by the committee.  Why?  If Al Gore had nothing to fear about, then why did he get defensive with her?  Why did he bring up his "thirty years" of environmental work if it wasn't a big deal?  Maybe Al Gore was not telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

Maybe the fact is that Al Gore is going to be benefitting from the climate change issue not only financially, like Rep. Blackburn discussed, but maybe even through another form...does the term "power" ring a bell?  Maybe Al Gore is in it for more power over people.  Maybe it isn't financial, but, after all of the countering scientific evidence, could it be possible that Al Gore is in it because he is gaining power over the hearts and minds of individuals across the country and even across the world?  Maybe.  Maybe Al Gore, knowing the political mess admitting something that unbecoming might sound, didn't want to admit this fault...  On top of this, maybe Al Gore's defensive reaction is simply a reflection of the fact that Al Gore is benefitting from it financially.

Al Gore's involvement with the group Kleiner Perkins, which Rep. Blackburn mentioned to Al Gore in this hearing, is a company in which he himself is a partner.  Kleiner Perkins invested a government bailout-sized $1 BILLION (with a "b") in companies that would benefit from the legislation on climate change Al Gore was pushing today on Capitol Hill...Hmmmm...Would it not make sense that he would benefit from this?  The facts say yes, but Al Gore, trying to cover himself from the shame of the people, says no.  Who do you want to believe?

Nice work Rep. Marsha Blackburn, you nailed him!

(Human Events has a great article on all of this!)

(Watch the actual video as well.)  When watching the video listen to Al Gore cynically laugh at Rep. Blackburn...How rude.

As the 100 days "landmark" approaches the media prepares to infiltrate your home and mind with reports on the Obama administrations progress.  However, if you must watch on April 29th (Obama's 100th day,) then I have a little "show prep" for you.

1. DON'T LISTEN!

The mainstream media and mainstream publications across the country are going to try to convince you that Obama has been a perfect President so far,  or at least that he hasn't done anything wrong yet.  The media pulled for Obama in the election, and they cannot risk their own "image" by changing  their minds for all to see.  Obama's economic policies, when looked at by the carful eye, do not make for a stable program.  Obama came into office with  money having been freshly thrown at banks and other areas of the private sector, but he still decided to throw more at the private sector!  Is that  common sense?  Has throwing money at the problem ever worked?  No.

This is just one of many things that Obama has messed up on when it comes to economics.  Off the top of my head I can think of a great number of  others--forcing out the GM CEO, saying that he wants to deplete the deficit while creating what will be another $4 trillion in spending, signing into law a  stimulus package that has absolutely no stimulus, etc.--however, naming bad economic policies is beside the point.  The point is, the media is going to  cover for the President on all of these issues in order that they may have his favor and that they may continue to promote their own political agenda.   Don't listen!  Obama's plans for universal healthcare, his allowance for tax-payer funded embryonic stem-cell research, his belief that "when you spread  the wealth around, it's good for everybody," his HORRID DIPLOMACY of not being able to stand up for American interests at the G20 and at the  Summit of the Americas (and instead get bossed around by France and Germany at the G20 and Nicaragua at the summit of the Americas,) these and  many other things will all be swept under the media rug.

2.  COME WITH FACTS IN HAND (OR IN MIND)

As I just mentioned, the mainstream media is going to do its best to diffuse anyone's view that Obama has been a bad President so far.  To do so,  however, they will be twisting the facts to fit their agenda.  If you want to combat this, and if you want to find out who is promoting the truth, you  must come with the facts in hand.  Be prepared for the media's onslaught.  Know what Obama has done already, know how much he is preparing to  spend and has already spent.  Know the extent of Obama's healthcare program, know how his tax credits are nothing but tax payer funded checks, and  know Obama's foreign policy.  Know as much as you can about the administration before 100's day coverage. 

        The same day that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got smacked down by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, she came up with an A rated excuse for the Obama-Chavez handshake.  Her excuse for Obama chatting it up with the rogue dictator of Venezuala?

Chavez is just to good at positioning himself towards the camera.  To quote Hillary:

…he [Chavez] is very adept at knowing where the camera’s are…

Of course!  That’s it!  Chavez is just a media hog!  We don’t need to worry about President's actions, we just need to forget, move on, and stop thinking about the Summit of the Americas.  President Obama couldn’t have possibly done anything wrong!

         The fact is Hillary is just playing politics.  The President did mess up by doing NOTHING to protect the interest of America and her allies at the conference and, at the same time, took photo ops with Chavez!  Hillary is dancing around this main issue.  However the Secretary would have us forget the President’s non-politically expedient actions because they are damaging to his “public image.”  So laugh it off Hillary, your just sweeping it under the rugs.

            Earlier tonight the new president of the United States gave his first speech to a joint session of Congress.  It was a predictable blueprint for the expansion of government.  He discussed his plans for energy reform, for so-called “job creation,” his view of defense reform, among other things, but maybe the most alarming topic he discussed was his plans for health care reform.  The President’s speech is certainly seen by Liberals as a speech with a “bipartisan” message, but it is clear that it was definitely a speech of Liberal principle.  One of the most Liberal aspects of this bill was Obama’s statement on Universal Healthcare.  Barack Obama warned Americans during the campaign that he wanted Universal Healthcare, and now our nation will reap the benefits.  Obama is handing the American people a hard pill to swallow, a pill filled with lots and lots of unnecessary aspects, and universal healthcare is certainly an aspect of this.  During the speech the President said thus on health care:

I suffer no illusions that this will be an easy process.  It will be hard.  But I also know that nearly a century after Teddy Roosevelt first called for reform, the cost of our health care has weighed down our economy and the conscience of our nation long enough.  So let there be no doubt: health care reform cannot wait, it must not wait, and it will not wait another year.

Uh oh!  Here it comes…  Obama is going to expand government’s interference into your doctor’s office.  Government will tell you what you can and cannot get at the doctor’s office.  Obama, Dodd, Kennedy, Pelosi, Reid, and Biden, just a few of the people who will be out their telling you what you’re healthcare benefits will be.  President Obama has told us that he wants to boost the economy, but when he talks about universal healthcare all he is discussing is a government monopoly of the healthcare industry; meaning a loss of jobs and a major dent in the economy, not to mention policy commonly described as typical socialism.  Because the government will monopolize the health industry, different aspects of good healthcare will become harder to afford, or at least worse in quality.  So Americans, hold onto your health, because socialized medicine for all is on the way…

            Today was the day that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have been waiting for. Today was the day that many of Americans have braced themselves for.  Today was the day that the Republican Party has been preparing for.  Today was the day that both Houses of Congress voted for the stimulus package.  The House passed it 246-183, the Senate passed it 60-38.  Yet there is one thing you should know about both of these vote tallies; only three Republicans voted in favor of the bill.  Three!  While the media may not report this as the factual resolution that the Republican Party is the party of Conservatism, I will.  Conservatism now reigns supreme in the Republican Party.  Congrats Republicans, for it is not the Democrat Party that won tonight; it is the Republican Party that won.

Republicans have made a shift from talk to action.  From views easily compromised to views strong with ideological stability, and one man has made a big move to prove this point.  One man, proving that the Republican Party is a party of strong, unshakable ideological, this one man proved that the Republican Party has changed, and this man has proved that to be a Republican means more than just having a title.  This man would be Sen. Judd Gregg.  His bid for Commerce Secretary was halted yesterday when he told the press that he was withdrawing his name from the bid for that position.  His reason?  Powerline Blog reports:

Gregg cited "irresolvable conflicts" with Obama on "many critical items of policy," including the Democrats' pork bill and the census.

In other words, Gregg's Conservative principles are unable to coexist in a position where he must agree to, at least sometimes, the Left wing policies of a very Left wing President.  Some might tell you that Gregg was a coward.  Others might say that he was in over his head; I just say that he was practicing principle. For one thing, he believed that Obama was wrong on promoting the appropriation of a huge sum of money for “stimulus,” when it is not even going to stimulate the economy.  Judd Gregg knew that he would be remembered in history books forever as the Commerce Secretary for Barack Obama if he went through with the confirmation process, and that package would be pinned on the resume of Obama and his chief appointees.  Gregg did not want to be known as a horrible spender; Gregg just could not sway his conscience in order to do that.  He knew that his legacy might be determined by this presidency, and he decided that he would rather be known as a Conservative, than a Secretary of Commerce.  Judd Gregg deserves the praise of not only his party, but this nation.  He stood up for principle over politics, and he won.  The Republican Party has been trying to prove that they are a different Party over the past few months, but I believe, as the humble little political analyst that I am, that Judd Gregg sealed the deal.  Conservatism IS the ideology of the Republican Party, and it is not going to change.

           Now that the so-called “stimulus” bill is set to pass, I would like to pause for a moment and look at what the Republican Party has come too.  No longer is it recognized as the party of compromise; Nancy Pelosi found that out during the House vote, and Harry Reid found that out when only three Republican Senators came to the “compromise” meeting.  Republicans are sticking to their guns; they have changed from somewhat of a moderate whole with Conservative pieces, to a Conservative whole with moderate pieces.  Of course we must see how long this will hold, but when we begin to see the fruits of Conservatism budding all over Capitol Hill we can see that something is going right.  This, of course, has frustrated a number of Democrats on the Hill.  They were looking forward to a moderate party, the kind we saw before and during the election; but they looked in the wrong place.  All they found in the GOP Caucus were a bunch of Republicans with Conservatism on the brain.  We see this saga played out all across the Hill; members of the Democrat caucus angry with their colleagues on the other side of the aisle.  Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) personifies this attitude.  The Politico reports:

"They're not interested in building anything. Their only goal is seek and destroy. You can't have bipartisanship with only one side," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.). "Once we put them back in the minority, they've gone back to the Gingrich model."

This is a perfect example of the fury of the angry Capitol Hill Democrat.  They are not mad because the Republican Party is Conservative, they are mad because the Republican Party is not willing to give in to their demands!  On top of this we must also allow the GOP to take as a complement that they have “gone back to the Gingrich model.”  When a Liberal Democrat recognizes that the GOP is going back to its Conservative past in order to make a Conservative present and future for itself, the Republicans must have done a really good job!  The little rendezvous between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party is over, and the Democrats are left aghast at their now opposing Congressional lover.  No longer will there be a submissive and smothered Republican message, the Republican Party will be heard loud and clear; after all even the Liberals can hear it!

            The American people have been speaking out and discussing repeatedly their opposition to the new stimulus package.  Congressional staffs have been busy all week with the thousands of calls go into the Capitol in opposition to this bill.  The American people know the nature of this bill, and they don’t like the smell of it.  At the same time, the American people have seen that the Senators are acting seemingly oblivious to the wants of their constituents and fellow Americans.  As we have seen time and time again, to many of our politicians are not only ignoring the voice of the people, but they are listening to their own political ambitions and desires first and foremost.   We once again saw an example of this attitude in Washington earlier today in the debate on the stimulus, when Sen. Charles Schumer stood up to speak:

“And let me say this, to all of the chattering class, that so much focuses on those little tiny, yes, porky amendments; the American people really don’t care.”

We don’t care?  We don’t care Senator?  The capitol telephone bill is skyrocketing because we don’t care?  On top of this, the debate should not be whether we care or not, but whether this is good for the American people, and this bill is certainly not good for us.  But, whether he takes this latter point into consideration, he must admit that we care.  Listen Senator, and you will hear the American people, and you will care that they care!

STAND UP, and tell Senator Schumer that you care!  Call his office: 202-224-6542.

            In the midst of an economic crisis we find our government in the hands of the Liberal ideology.  We find Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, David Obey, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Joe Biden anxious to use their Liberal policies of an increased governmental interference.  The old policies of Carter and Roosevelt have come to be exchanged for the “new” policies of Obama and Pelosi.  Of course, maybe this nothing more than “…the change we need.” but in many ways it seems to me that the Obama stimulus package is nothing more than a package any old Liberal would implement during his presidency.  Bringing the package before the House of Representatives to a tune exceeding $800 billion, Obama’s plan is full of many a spending project, ranging everywhere from universal broadband access to research for STDs.   Of course, while the packages seems more like a list of Democrat pet projects than a stimulus package, the Liberal leaders of both Houses of Congress are trying to convince us that the stimulus package is the only way to solve our problem.  Throw money at the problem, is the philosophy, increase the deficit, is the mantra.  Of course, the Left has produced those who want to increase the size of the package.  As Harry Reid put it before the spending amount was finalized, (in fact it was in early January, before Obama was even inaugurated:)

“We -- I have not received, of course, the exact package from the president-elect and his folks, but he has indicated that there's at least 20 economists that he's talked with, and all but one of those believe it should be from $800 billion to $1.2 trillion or $1.3 trillion.”

Of course the package is less than the alleged trillion, but the idea still remains.  The Liberals are cash hungry, and they want tax money.  Not only do they want the money, they want to take it and spend it.  Of course, one must take into consideration that spending $800 billion while we are already in debt, merely creates the problem of an increased national deficit, thereby not helping the economy, but putting yet another entity in deeper debt.  Of course, the argument has been made time and time again, that the Democrat Party is ready to be “bipartisan.”  This so-called bipartisanship coming from the party who’s candidate won the presidential election and now has said to a member of the Republican leadership “I won.”  This coming from the party who was alienated in the House vote on this bill; with all present Republicans voting against the bill.  Bipartisanship?  Hardly.  This economic “stimulus” package has been called “mortgaging” the future generations of American taxpayers.  I agree.  Yet, when one looks at the debt owed by this entity, one might say that the next generation is going to inherit a “toxic” mortgage, just like the ones the government spent money to bailout in 2008.

            While it is clear from my introduction that I am in stark opposition to the current bailout proposal, it is also clear that I believe something still must be done.  As a Conservative, I believe in a three-pronged economic approach, namely:

Lower Taxes

Less Government Spending

And a Free Market Approach to the Economy.

This, in every way shape and form is the polar opposite of the current package, even after the so-called “compromise.”  What we need is not “compromise” but real solutions!  The current plan is not a solution!  The current plan is nothing but a Liberal spending program, with a somewhat lower price tag then the original.  The principles, though, remain clear in both the original and “compromise” stimulus package;

More Government Spending

And More Government Interference in the Free Market and the Average Citizen

Of course, the main problem is certainly not that this kind of plan can be labeled “Liberal,” but that such a package has not worked, cannot work, and will not stimulate the economy. To give an example of the Liberal nature, and the anti-stimulus prospects of this bill let me use some examples from the bill itself; for example, $9,000,000,000 in spending for universal broadband access, $2,000,000,000:

“For an additional amount for ‘‘Construction’’ for expenses necessary for the construction of river and harbor, flood and storm damage reduction, shore protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and related projects authorized by law,” 

$1,000,000,000:

“For an additional amount for ‘‘Federal Prison System, Buildings and Facilities” ”

$483,000,000:

“For an additional amount for ‘Non-Defense Environmental Cleanup’ ”

$5,527,000,000:

“For an additional amount for ‘Defense Environmental Cleanup’ ”

And this small list is just the beginning!  As one can easily infer, these are not the kind of spending projects that will stimulate the economy.  In fact, one can also easily discern, that these kind of projects are more of pork barrel projects than stimulus projects.  And yet, in this economic climate, it is clear that something still must be done.  For this reason, I, Jonathan Krohn, propose a different plan of action.

            Let’s solve the problem; that is my message to the President, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and others on Capitol Hill who have placed their chips in favor of this bill.  This is not our only option, as many on the Mall have said, to fix our economy.  There is another way of rejuvenating our economy, and that is to follow three basic steps in economic reconstruction:

1.     Lower Taxes

   Too few are the provisions in this bill for lowering taxes.  The lowering of taxes must be a crucial part to any stimulus package!  Carter tried to stimulate an economy without lowering taxes, and he failed miserably; putting America into a deep recession in 1980.  Reagan, on the other hand, inheriting Carter’s recession, lowered taxes as part of his economic plan and fixed the recession.  Lower taxes work because, as the government stops taking more of your paycheck, you are able to keep more and spend it on whatever you want.  Instead of the government spending it on non-stimulus measures, like environmental clean up, you can spend it on a new piece of furniture (for example,) thereby stopping that furniture company from laying off somebody else.  That is the real economic stimulus.  The people, not the government, should be the ones deciding who does well in this economy.  The people, not the government, should be stimulating the economy.

2.     Less Government Spending

   One problem caused by spending more is the deficit.  On top of not promoting a substantial amount of economic stimulus, this current package also increases the deficit; not a good way to stimulate the economy!  If we increase the deficit we will be in more debt, if we are in more debt then the economy will need stimulus; plain and simple, increasing the deficit only puts us in worse economic condition requiring more thought and more answers to the tough economic questions that face us.  Why not, then, lower spending instead of increasing it?  This would save us money, would it not?  It would help us as we try to pay of the national debt, would it not?  The answer to both of these questions is yes!  On top of this, more government spending, only allows the government to intrude upon the lives of Americans more and more.  It allows the government to encroach upon the borders of the Constitution, and that is not what we want.

3.     Respect for the Free Market Approach

                        We need to respect the free market, the private sector, and the American citizen as the main answers to our economic woes.  The private sector has long been forgotten as the key to economics.  The citizens of this country are who the government was set up for.  As Daniel Webster would put it:

“It is the people’s Constitution, the people’s government, made by the people, made for the people, and answerable to the people.”

That is what fiscal responsibility must be.  It must be the government answering to the people.  That is why we have a government in the first place.  As Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence, the government is:

“…deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

If the government does not recognize the sovereignty of the free market system in the economy than the intrusion of government upon the people will be endless.  Economic freedom, freedom for the people to choose winners and losers, freedom for the peoples to spend money the way they wish.  Freedom for the people to pick what America’s economic future will hold; these freedoms are the key to a better economic society.

America is not a nation of the government but a nation of the republic.  A nation where the people choose.  Sure we are not “mob-rule” but in our country the government should represent the people and their interest, and this package is not protecting the interests of the people at all!  The aforementioned Conservative approach is more geared toward the interests of the people and future generations of Americans instead of the interests of the Liberal majority in Congress; and that is what American government should always be geared towards, because the American people are the people who make America America.

            Well here we are; another nominee for a cabinet level position in the Obama administration having a tax issue.  Higher taxes, of course being key to the Liberal economic policy, we would think that men like Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, and Barney Frank would come to Daschle’s opposition, right?  Wrong.  As one White House official put it:

“Every nomination has bumps along the road but they handle it.”

Really?  Maybe so, maybe every nomination does have bumps along the road, but those bumps certainly are not always the nominee not paying more than $100,000 in taxes.  Just one of those, “bumps along the road?”  Not likely.  Do not forget as well, that former Sen. Daschle has been paid during this time with a $1 million salary. Hmmm, isn’t that income within Barack Obama’s top tax bracket to whom he promised time and time again to raise taxes upon?  Yes.  Yet, does it matter if this man, who is with in this tax bracket, does not pay the taxes already allotted to him?  No.  When it comes to a presidential nominee who makes these mistakes, he is merely falling susceptible to “bumps along the road.”

Thanks for coming to my website defineconservatism.com, and sharing interest in my blog posts.  Starting next week I will be publishing one or more columns a week to go along side my normal blog posts.  These columns will cover a number of topics across the political world, and they will hopefully be insightful and enlightening.  Keep fightin' the good fight.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Krohn

            What does the Republican Party believe? What does it mean to be a Republican?  During the Reagan years and through Gingrich’s revolution, one would most certainly say that being a Republican meant being a Conservative. Yet, during recent years the answer to this question has been divorced from the Conservative movement in many ways.  During the previous election cycle the American people proved the point that just because a person is a Republican, it does not imply that a person is a Conservative.  Yet this ideological shift was not caused by any outside force, but by the Republican Party itself.  The Republican Party betrayed itself especial on the fiscal issue.  The Republican Party gave itself to bad spending habits, and gave in, continually, to compromising its political views under the guise of being bipartisan.  One example of the Republican Party compromising its views for political gain occurred last year during the $700 billion bailout.  John Boehner spoke, in support of the $700 billion bailout saying that,

“These are the votes that separate the men from the boys and the girls from the women.”

This, the American people knew, were not the kind of votes that America needed to have their “men” and “women” stand up for.  Yet, though it was voted down the first time, when a revised, and more pork filled version of the bill came back before the House, the Republicans helped pass it.  The Republican Party did not stand up for its base principles here; instead it camouflaged the compromising of its principles under the guise of bipartisanship.  Quite frankly, these were the votes that ruined the Republican Party, and these where also the votes that brought the Republican Party to the state that it is in today.  Such compromising of the Conservative message contributed heavily against the Republican Party in this election cycle, and helped them to take heavy losses.  Yet today I am proud to say that I am not only a Conservative but also a Republican.  Wednesday, the Republican Party began to return to its base, as every single voting Republican said NO to the more than $800 billion Obama stimulus package.  On top of this, a new chairman, Michael Steele, was elected to head the Republican Party; he too will be a driving force for the future of Conservatism.  And yet, one must beg the question, what do all these things mean for the Republican Party?  Well they mean one thing and one thing alone; the Republican Party is returning to its Conservative base.

            The unanimity of the Party’s decision is nothing short of remarkable considering that all but one of the members of the Republican Party that have a seat in Congress were voting that day.  By the official tally all 177 Republicans present cast their vote in opposition to the strongly big government stimulus package.  This united view is not a sheer accident, no it was purposeful; the Republican Party had every intention of being united.  The Republicans knew that they had messed up in the past.  They know that they have, at times, compromised their political philosophy for political points in the past, and they know that now that they need to embrace their base philosophy.  Republicans know that they cannot successfully address the future of their party without referencing its past. Without looking back at what Reagan, Gingrich, and others did using Conservatism; the entire political ideology means nothing.  Only in the context of its success, and its continual ability to succeed, does Conservatism find its proper meaning.  The leaders of the Republican Party know this, and they have chosen to uphold the banner towed by so many previous leaders of their party. Conservatism, they know, is what the American people want.  If it was not clear before the election it was certainly clear during it.  Governor Sarah Palin ran on the Conservative message.  Because she ran on the Conservative message the American people came to her in droves.  The Republican base was energized by Governor Sarah Palin and that same base eagerly supported her.   Alas, the Republican Party, on the whole, had lost the faith of many members of the American people.  Many Republicans elected under the Conservative banner went to Washington and failed their constituents by compromising their principles. The American people saw the Republican Party failing its principles, and turned to whomever would seemingly help them.  The Democrat Party eagerly embraced these people.  In other words, the Republican Party lost the election because of, not in spite of, the American people’s belief in Conservatism.  The Republican Party recognized their faults, and decided to change.  Wednesday was a step in the right direction for the Republican Party.  The Republican Party standing together on Conservative fiscal principle is a comfort and proves, in the mind of this humble fellow, that the Republican Party is embracing its base.

            Michael Steele, the new Chairman of the Republican Party, is also a comfort for Conservatives in the Republican Party.  Michael Steele is a hard core Conservative.  He believes strongly in the four basic principles of Conservatism:

            Respect for the Constitution

            Respect for Life

            Less Government

            And Personal Responsibility

These principles mean something to Michael Steele.  As he wrote in his plan for the Republican Party’s future, called the “Blueprint for Tomorrow”:

“In this first installment of my suggested Blueprint for Tomorrow, I hope you’ll

notice something missing. I am trying to avoid the use of any words that start

with “re” … words like renewal, rebuild, recharge, re-this and re-that. I’m

convinced we should not re-anything. Instead, we must stand proudly for the

timeless principles our Party has always stood for when we stood at our best.”

It is clear, from this quote, that Michael Steele believes in Conservatism, and believes that it should be the base of the Republican Party.  He believes in the principles of the founders, and he believes that these are the principles for thefuture.  Michael Steele will bring charisma and good leadership to the Republican Party as well.  Michael Steele will certainly be a key in the future of Conservatism.

            I entitled this writing, “The New Republican Party.”  Yet, I think that saying this is the New Republican Party is actually quite a fallacy; the current state of the Republican Party could more specifically be called the “Old Republican Party,” for all the Party is doing is returning to the Conservative base the Party has embraced in the past.  The Republican Party has woke up and smelled the coffee, and now it is ready to drink the coffee.  The Republicans are ready to stand up for the principles that have their party great, and they are going to make the party even greater.  The future of the Republican Party, if it continues on this new pattern, is going to be a bright one.