Rejuvied, I'm writing a letter to Mark Sanford

I needed a few days to flush my system clean.

Okay, maybe a little more than that.

John McCain lost this thing way before Tuesday. As such, I spent the better part of a month wondering how I'd feel on election night. Unsurprisingly, I felt proud, although to a greater extent than I thought was possible. As I have told many people, a man who would've had to sit at the back of the bus 50 years ago will now be appointing the person who oversees all the buses. This is monumental. This is greater than a milestone; this is a turning point in the history of our country.

To all Americans, it is something that "should not escape us."

The words in quotations were said by South Carolina's own Mark Sanford of Obama's significance given the history of our nation, and more specifically, the history of his state. It's not the only thing we agree on.

While I plan on celebrating the president-elect's historical achievement for the rest of my days, the loyal opposition has to get its house in order and go back to meat and potatoes. Many minds have offered many theories as to how the GOP can return itself to national prominence. Most of what I have heard, however, concerns a rightward shift on social policy. Because of this, I'm very concerned. Republicans have won elections because of "values" for the last eight years, and the run has officially reached its end. No, I'm not speaking of the "death of conservatism" or any such dramatic retrospective. Rather, I'm speaking of prioritization, a theme I will hit upon repeatedly in the coming years. What takes precedence: government spending or gay marriage; tax policy or flag burning; energy independence or, yes, abortion? It's not like me to speak in such black-and-white terms, but I'm highlighting the real makeover that has to happen to the Republican Party -- not so much a change in policy, but a change in what we talk about.

The elections for federal office my side have won in recent years have been won at the cost of utter division amognst us. We incensed half of the country when we subversively insinuated that those who were against the Iraq War were somehow "unpatriotic". We tread dangerous ground when we dare reflect the views of one Rush Limbaugh, that the real religion of the godless left is liberalism. We have to stop actively campaigning against 49% of the country so the other 51% can rally behind us with great fervor. This is no longer the time for wedge issues; this is the time for "issues" period. Simply put, we have to start talking big.

We have to start formulating a long-term plan for our nation's energy security. If we think global warming is a hoax, then we need to educate the country as to why we think as much. We need to corner big government and beat it like a rented mule, so our views on low taxes can actually become affordable. We need to talk health care and Social Security. We need to treat foreign policy as something that necessitates nuance, not knee-jerking. We can't be afraid to talk shop on these things. Moreover, we have to put them at the forefront, because in order to recapture the votes we have lost, we have to start talking to the voters again. We cannot appeal to the morality that makes our blood boil and call it a strategy. We have to appeal to minds. We have to engage the opposition in what Limbaugh calls "the arena of ideas".

And now, enter Mark Sanford. He can represent this effort better than anyone in the Republican Party. Here is a man who has displayed humility insofar as refusing his Congressional housing stipend when he served in the House. Here is a man who brought pigs to his office in Columbia to mock the free-wheelers in his state's legislature. Here is a man who, time and time and time again, has stood firmly on principle. John McCain may think he is reform-minded, and perhaps he is, but as governor of a state whose budget was bloated when he took over, Sanford has had opportunities to shine that McCain never had. Not only is this man fearless, however. He is young and articulate -- two things that, frankly, are sorely needed on the national stage given the party's current reputation. He is very bright. He has a tremendous sense of history and perspective, often invoking the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in both his words and actions. And to be sure, he appears to be plenty acceptable to the socially conservative wing of the party. But unlike other candidates who may rise to the top in 2012, Sanford could be one that does not run on what he thinks about intelligent design and gay adoption. Call it callous, but he has bigger fish to fry. He has shown as much through his temperament and governance.

People rallied behind Barack Obama because he represented an "agent of change". I would rally behind Mark Sanford because he has lived that change. In more ways than one, he's right, he knows he is, and he's not afraid to let everyone know about it. He's utterly confident in the substance of the beliefs by which he governs. He thinks and he acts. For a party that has been successfully labeled a bunch of reactionary and dim-witted whack-jobs, that's the sort of medicine we need to cure what ails us.

Thus, it is with much excitedness that I endorse Mark Sanford for the 2012 GOP nomination before he's even announced he's running. He may need to be convinced.

So I'm going to write him a letter.

The conservative concession speech

(As soon as I can sync the audio and video, I'll embed it here.)

Good day, world. It’s November 4, 2008.

Or as folks non-American would say: 4November2008, because they don’t use commas. I wasn’t aware of this international comma ban until yesterday, so you’ll have to forgive me.

All cynics need a jumping off point. Mine could be the top of a ten story building, but I have a life to live. I’m of the disenchanted variety—disenchanted because of an international coffee wonder that tastes like coal sediment (cough, Starbucks, cold); uh, there are the constipated Canadian wonderboys that are Nickelback (Look at this photograph/Every time I look I crap my pants); and lest I forget Tiger Woods’s surgically repaired left knee, though it’s not like the man isn’t staying busy. Ahem. But this disenchantment is my default persona. I’m like Eeyore without the tail thing. And I’m not the ass that he is, either.

But today, I see my Eeyore and raise it a tablespoon of solemnity, because at this rate, my political party will nominate Nelson Rockefeller’s casket at the 2012 GOP convention and provide to it as a running mate Dr. Neil Clark Warren and his “29 dimensions of compatibility” to satisfy the base. I’m glad, really, that the Republican mantra of the 20th century is “Because I’m not the other guy!” I haven’t had less incentive to support something since Hank Steinbrenner took over the Yankees. Let me get this straight—millions of Americans are going to cast votes for Barack Obama because they want a mended health care system, a more nuanced foreign policy, and a president who can utter ten consecutive words without phonetic error, and I’m supposed to vote for John McCain because of Jeremiah Wright? Wrong. This is not only embarrassing, it’s really pitiable. I’m adamantly opposed to the death penalty, but this brand of politics deserves the chair.

I want my guys to start talking about the big things again: more about school choice and less about school prayer; a federal budget that’s more befitting of the world’s richest economy and not some Sim Country pipe dream; lower tax rates for all, from the lowliest among us to the wealthiest; international relations that aren’t conducted as if they’re a game of Risk with a little red button to boot; energy security, the environment, more money, more peace, freedom, justice for all. I’m not saying issues concerning school prayer don’t matter, no more than I’m saying the gay marriage debate is irrelevant. But I am saying that these are the sorts of things that my side has used to drive wedges between the fair-minded among us. We have to stop.

We have to stop, because the conservative movement—the real conservative movement, the one Barry Goldwater described as being “founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please, as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process”—has much to offer. And we can offer it respectfully, in good faith, and with good humor. What we see from the Republican Party today is not its best, because the Republican Party as we see it is too saturated with intolerance; attitudes of: “Sure, you can live how you want to, just as long as I approve.” My teammates have alienated many, many people. And for that, we must apologize. There is no excuse. There can be no finger pointing, lest those fingers be pointed at ourselves.

There are those on my side who would bemoan my remorse, but at the expense of eloquence, screw them. These are the same people who spent the better part of a year shooting spitballs at Barack Obama because he’s the smartest kid in the classroom and he likes to sit up front. I’m sorry, but when did the GOP begin looking upon excellence in any of its capacities as a bad thing? Obama is too elite? Really? Shouldn’t we strive for elite? Wouldn’t you tell your neighbors, your co-workers, your neighbor’s pets, your co-workers’ pets that your son was the president of the Harvard Law Review? Was it not William F. Buckley, the granddaddy of conservatism, who couldn’t go one sentence without invoking words like albescent, deracination, and excogitation? When in the hell did my side stop wanting our leaders to be the smartest kids in the classroom?

I don’t know. I don’t care to know. All I care is that Team Conservative takes a page from Goldwater’s playbook and rediscovers its mojo. Our constituents by and large aren’t bigoted, so I ask, why should our politics be? Hopefully the big wigs will answer that question sometime within the next two years. Until then, congratulations to the victorious for kicking our asses. We deserved it this time around. But when we find our brains and use them to, you know, think, you’ll get yours.

I chose to stop caring for a couple of weeks

Between the 1,000,000 daily robocalls, the inundation with fibs -- err, advertisements -- and the unmitigated hysteria from those 18-29 years old, I couldn't take it anymore. I thought 2004 tarnished me. 2008 has doubled the damage.

I'm sick of choosing between the lesser of two evils. As Christopher Buckely alluded to, I indeed appreciate Barack Obama's "first class temperament" and smooth projection. I happen to agree with his foreign policy as much as I agree with McCain's; in this current environment, America cannot afford a president who is going to continue President Bush's practice of alienation. I do believe John McCain to be endlesslly more nuanced than George Bush, but I fear the man will be stirred to anger far too easily. America now needs a defender, not a militarist. The last thing we need is another war, and Iran perhaps eagerly awaits.

But Obama's economic policies are reckless, as are the economic policies of any other generic liberal politician. In this, the man is nothing new; in fact, his words, no matter how eloquent, are quite hackneyed. He offers nothing new -- he offers "spread the wealth around". Of course, that's the nature of a progressive tax system, and some people on the right have overblown his words. But nevertheless, Obama will spread the wealth around far more than will McCain, and the latter is utterly preferable. Economics will be the overriding factor for me in almost any election, thus why I throw my support behind John McCain, albeit gingerly.

I want to be able to strongly support a presidential candidate. I have yet to have such an opportunity in my lifetime, and considering the Republican Party's move toward populist rhetoric on economics and solidly right-wing social stances, I doubt I'll have it some time soon. In fact, in terms of political stances alone, I currently matchup as much with the Democratic platform as I do with the Republican platform. That's as much a reflection of my independence as it is the Republican Party's dramatic move away from libertarian-leaning conservatism. It's disappointing. But perhaps a good shellacking tomorrow will change all of that.

Not that I'm rooting for it.

Incensed

Ted Stevens: guilty.

Moderate-to-liberal GOP to McCain: Screw you, Senator.

Thompson: Obama most liberal Dem nominee ever.

Dowd: Kerry-Edwards most liberal Dem ticket ever.

Democrats: liberal.

The above links, the content of which is not necessarily recent, point out five things Republicans cannot seem to come to grips with: (1) they're arrogant, (2) they're fickle, (3) they're desperate, (4) they were desperate four years ago, and (5) they'll always be desperate as long as long as "liberal" is a line of attack.

When should the other guy's liberal policies be the primary reason someone votes for a conservative? If I was alive and registered in '80, I would've supported Reagan because he was Reagan and not because he wasn't Carter. In 2008, the only reason I support McCain is because he isn't Obama. The dynamic of this party has changed; instead of a party that inspires excitement, it's a party that inspires fear of the Democrat and fear of the world. Such a strategy can work for only so long. Time's up.

I've pretty much become disgusted with all things political during the past two weeks, but then again, what else is new? Nothing enlightening can be said until post-Nov 4 -- the very moment that things in this utterly worthless GOP begin to change. We need a little more Jeff Flake and Mark Sanford, and a little less Tucker Bounds.

I'll be reenergized once this pathetic campaign is over.

Things rather uninteresting on the campaign trail

Still.

I'll probably be shouting some additional words about our [socialist] government tomorrow, though.

And tonight on The Daily Show, McCain got reemed for, well, his own words. Back in 2000 during a Chris Matthews-hosted Hardball town hall, the current Republican nominee defended higher tax rates on the wealthy because, well, they could afford it. I'll dig up video if it becomes available.

This is the savior of Republican politics in the present day? Sheesh.

Via Politico, wrong Blunt wants more Wright

"I think the association, frankly, with Rev. Wright, for 20 years is something that I wish John McCain wouldn't have taken off the table."

I keep searching for a rationale as to why I would almost wish -- gasp! -- the demise of the current Republican Party in a couple of weeks. Arguments such as those from Blunt may be what I'm looking for.

The Democrats do it as much as the Republicans; it being advance attack politics above all else, no matter what the talking heads of the parties say. I'd rather the Republicans change first. The only way they change with any immediacy is if they suffer total catastrophe this November. Small losses do not effect change; they effect complacency. After eight years of Bush Republican politics, the party has grown comfortable with venom and complacent with issues. If the Republican Party actually cared about policy, the federal government wouldn't be spending a quadrillion bucks a day. We may not be mired in Iraq, either, but that is less conservative-liberal than it is pacifist-militarist. Remember, we waged a Civil War and two Gulf Wars under Republicans, but also two World Wars under Democrats. Foreign policy doesn't remain constant over time in either party.

Republicans need to start talking about issues again. John McCain is not the guy, because John McCain does not represent the politics of Ronald Reagan. Guys like NYT columnist David Brooks think I'm wrong. Earlier this year on Lehrer (hat tip greenmountainpolitics):

"Well, I think what they should do is just totally re-brand themselves, but they haven't done that. I mean, they -- and I was struck. I've been meeting with Republicans for years. Five years ago, they knew the problem was coming. There's some immobility there that they're not adjusting to. And they've tried to -- maybe the problem is we weren't conservative enough. But if they were more conservative, they'd be in worse shape. I mean, they really haven't adjusted to the post-Reagan era. It's still, who's the next Reagan? What would Reagan do? And I think it's just mental blindness."

David Brooks's problem is that he's failed to realize something very obvious: the Bush Republican Party is different from that of Reagan's not because the party has shifted right, but because it has shifted left. Does he remember compassionate conservatism? That was a thinly veiled idea to expand the role of the federal government under the label of "conservatism". Nope, Reagan would have none of this stuff. Neither would Goldwater. But David Brooks would have us think differently, because he thinks a little more Gerald Ford is in order.

If the Republican Party follows Brooks's track, there will be no conservative party at the forefront of American politics, but a center-left party and a center party. These are political factions that are responsible for soaring defecits and invasive governments. They pervert federalism. They misinterpret the role of the Constitution. They distrust free markets. They stand for many of the things that are wrong, not right, with America.

Where would Brooks's brand of conservatism fit within the political spectrum? How could it possibly make a case that it's all that different from Democratic liberalism? This is where Brooks would have conservative vs. liberal politics go -- a blurred image in which one is not discernable from the other; a melting pot. We've tried compassionate conservatism and it has failed rather dramatically.

Sure, it's fine for political philosophies to update themselves over time. The environment poses much more pertinent debate than it did fifty years ago, for example. But tackling such things effectively doesn't automatically entail more government. That is Brooks's greatest concern: that because the world is changing, the core tenants of conservatism must change with it. But I haven't heard such call for philosophical change within liberal circles. They like their government big as FDR did. It's the charge of the next generation of conservatives to reciprocate this. They need to like their government small -- yes, even libertarian -- as Reagan and Goldwater did, or else the Republican Party will cease to exist as a viable political force.

A disillusioned Powell

Happy Sunday.

The last three days, there has been scant news from the campaign trail, other than that Joe the Plumber has officially become the latest victim of a misguided media. Instead of focusing on Barack Obama's assessment that the government's role is to "spread the wealth around", the likes of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and yes, even FOX, have chosen to turn this into a personal story (it's just that FOX is interested in defending the man from attacks, but still, they're not that interested in the issue). Surprising? Hardly. During presidential campaigns, news organizations play to the absolute lowest common denominator -- i.e., avoiding substantive discussion of policy at all costs. This is just the latest example.

What is news, however, is Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama. This is the same Colin Powell many Republicans tried to persuade to run for president over the past two decades. I think we now see what his politics are.

I'm not entirely convinced that in terms of their approaches to politics, Powell and President Bush are all that dissimilar. It's evident to me that Bush's compassionate conservatism is nothing more than a semi-fancy way of saying "populist". And to be honest, I'm not sure he's realized this during his tenure in office, perhaps for one overriding reason -- he's not interested in realizing it. George Bush cares about policy as much as I care about cricket. It's why he was so effective in the wake of 9/11, because the man had an identity that could relate with the everyman. Now that foreign policy has become more nuanced and the economy has been placed front and center, he's in over his head. Take the financial crisis, for instance; he just wants something to be done.

Such is the case with Colin Powell. During his television appearance this morning on Meet the Press, he said: "We have two wars. We have economic problems, we have health problems. ... Those are the problems the American people want to hear about, not about Mr. Ayers, not about who's a Muslim and not a Muslim." In Powell's eyes, Obama is the only viable candidate in this election that's talking about getting that something done. However that is achieved is of secondary concern, even with Obama's socialist tendencies.

It hasn't hurt that Powell has become completely disillusioned with the Republican Party.

Colin Powell: moderate.