Illegal Immigration: Discuss without Fear

Immigration is a subject that caused the most heated discussions during my time in law school. It was surprising to me. I thought it would be abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, torture, or maybe gun control but no it was illegal immigration.

Liberals are unable to argue rationally on the issue. They get angry and almost immediately start throwing out personal insults, allegations of racism, and all sorts of other things. Voices get elevated, heart rates jump, and beads of sweat begin to form, and many times it is on white faces. For one to resort to personal attacks so quickly in a debate should be a sure sign of weakness. And in this case it most definitely is.

We want to stop criminals, undocumented workers, and potential terrorists crossing into the United States BUT we want documented workers, skilled laborers, and a steady flow of new citizens into the country. So how do we do both?

The conservative/legalist argument is that it is pointless to reform immigration law before we restore security at the border first. They want to close up the border with a fence and strict enforcement of immigration laws, with a clear documented record of who is coming in and who is leaving. Within the United States, they want illegal immigrants deported. Problem is there are probably anywhere from 12-15 million of them here already, many that have been here for years.

Another more mixed conservative proposal is to secure the border THEN decide what to do with those already here. In this case, they don't want mass deportations, rounding up of individuals. They are willing to listen to pathway to citizenship but will NOT grant amnesty. the legalists will not grant amnesty or offer any path to citizenship that does not require them to jump through all sorts of hoops and in many cases go home.

Moderates want to secure the border, create a path to citizenship, and really thats it. So they want a secure border and essentially amnesty. In this debate there are probably very few moderates.

The liberal will not secure the border until we have a clear path to citizenship, amnesty for those already here, and equal protection of those that came here illegally with those that come here legally.

Which of the four positions stops the criminal element from entering the United States? all of them except the liberal proposal.

Which of the four positions provides a means of discerning the criminal from the non-criminal immigrants (productive from nonproductive immigrants)? The two conservative proposals.

Which of the four positions provides a path to citizenship to immigrants that are already here? All four.

Wait a minute? You mean those crazy right-wing racists want a path to citizenship? Yes they do. It would not be easy and millions would likely have to leave under their plan. It requires paying a fine, paying back-taxes, becoming registered, learning English, and proving that they have no criminal record here or in Mexico. If they just got here, they would probably not have this option, they would probably have to leave. In addition, they would want the federal government to strictly control the flow of immigrants from this point forward to ensure we are receiving only productive new members of America.

Here is what offends a lot of people. hardliners would want those illegal immigrants who do not do all the above to be deported. That number could be quite large.

I believe the hardliner position is actually rational, except for the active effort to deport illegal immigrants. We should not focus law enforcement efforts in rooting out illegals but rooting out the reasons they come here, unscrupulous employers that have no problem hiring illegals and paying them sub-minimum wage. I also believe people should be given a fair chance to stay here, earn a living, and become a citizen. No Amnesty, but lets not make it impossible for a hard-working immigrant to get it done.

What is happening in Arizona? Self-defense. Arizona is not making a statement on what to do with illegals. What they are saying is that the lack of immigration enforcement or a reformed policy has led to an explosion of crime on the border. It is a situation they can no longer tolerate and are hence authorizing state police to do what the federal government will not do.

Arizona should not be doing this, but they were forced into a corner. What should happen is the federal government stop being cowards and actually agree on illegal immigration reform. At that point, the Arizona Law should be repealed.

I believe illegal immigration is stalled because of a giant electoral "boogey" man that does not exist. Somehow politicians fear a massive backlash from Hispanic voters if they support a strict or tough immigration policy. I do not believe that to be true. First, illegal immigrants do not vote and neither do their families. those that did come here illegally and were either granted amnesty in the 80s or have become citizens some other way since then will certainly not like the new law but I don't they have such large numbers, nor vote reliably.

What about those that came here legally? There is no compelling evidence that legal Hispanic immigrants and citizens strongly oppose tough immigration policy. The demonstrations are large and sometimes violent as it was in Arizona the other day, but one must ask: how many demonstrating are illegal immigrants? In other words, what portion of those protests were from non-citizens?

It is nothing more than a boogey man that moderates and conservatives must ignore. The majority of this country does not want amnesty, and they want the border secured. Go with that and you will not face this shadowy backlash from the electorate.

This situation needs to be solved. We are in such dire economic condition, we cannot help neighboring countries deal with their poor and unemployed until we can deal with our own.

Leader of a Movement? Or a movement of leaders?

The title here is awkward for a reason. You notice the first question is capitalized while the second is not. In the United States, there is a common social desire to designate leader, someone that represents your beliefs and has the intelligence, skill, and power to make things happen. This is not a political split, both left and right have this among them. But there is also a second common social desire. On both left and right, there is a desire to be part of a movement, part of something big that has no "leader" or "authority". The question is: are you a person who seeks out a leader first and then join his movement? Or are you a person who seeks out the movement or perhaps starts the movement?

The Democratic Party has had a love affair with icons or the leader type. In the modern era it started with John F. Kennedy. He came about in an age of television, which gave greater emphasis to aesthetics. Combining this with gifted oration, you had an icon. JFK had substance. Democratic leaders after that did not.

Today it is clear Barack Obama replaced Hillary as the Democratic icon. The Party rallied around a cult of personality for one and then the other. Obama lacked substance, but that didn't matter, he was the chosen one. Hillary had some substance, but her image was not as compelling and so the Party switched horses so to speak. He won the Presidency on his cult of personality and the aesthetics, not substance. They should be regretting it. Few can argue otherwise today.

It is not just Presidents either. In Congress, the Democratic Party is top down. Speaker Pelosi and majority leader Reid rule each chamber from the top down. The centrist leaderless movements or factions within each are cast aside for challenging the Obama-Pelosi-Reid leadership. Whether it is Blue Dogs or Bart Stupak. The bottom of the party that was not behind the top's agenda was forced to march forward with it.

Republicans are guilty as well. Republicans worship Ronald Reagan. An iconic image with substance, the red JFK if you will. In 2008, twenty years after he left office, Republicans quickly wanted to find the next Reagan. Problem was none were available. McCain was the top choice because he was an independent "maverick" type. People thought he was a better icon then Romney, Huckabee, or Guiliani. they were right. He selected another potentially great icon as his running mate, Sarah Palin. In the end, Obama proved the better one however.

What has happened afterward has been sad. After McCain's defeat, mainstream republicans are constantly "searching for a new leader of the party". They have been closely following Palin, Romney, Pawlenty, Steele, Bachmann, and Gingrich. But none of them will be the leader of the party. Palin, to her credit, does not appear she wants to be the new leader of the party. She decided to forego the typical track of serving out her term and then running for federal office in 2010. Instead she has joined the media side on Fox News and has become a vocal voice for grassroots groups and is participating in speaking engagements for other organizations. Cynics can argue she is trying to become a populist leader and will run for President in 2012, and maybe that is true, but it is a very unconventional path. Some top republicans are thus wrongly pessimistic or nervous because they have yet to find a new leader.

The Tea Party is the opposite. Members are not looking for a leader. They don't have a chairman, a president, CEO, delegates, central committee, or anything of the sort. In fact, try and find the national tea party website, it does not exist. They are not interested in finding a leader or coalescing in any centralized structure. Those that are part of the Tea Party Movement want to be part of a headless movement, not the bottom-rung of a pyramid organization. The Tea Party has no hierarchy to speak of.

There are drawbacks. Without a leader, there is no coherent grand strategy. The Tea Party does not have specific electoral or political goals. There is the "Contract From America" and various groups making endorsements but it is not unified in any single strategy. This can result in tactical mistakes, such as running multiple candidates and splitting the vote, allowing the opponent to win. Another possibility is one regional group at odds with another. This has yet to happen however. Despite this drawback, the movement can still succeed.

Tea Partiers see politics differently. They see politicians as levers that they pull, not the other way around. They have their favorites, they choose candidates and vote for them, but now a days they are prepared to vote them out just as quickly should they fail. They dislike both parties, they are not partisans at all. In particular this will happen with the Republican Party. Incumbent Republicans are being challenged from within their party in Arizona, Utah, and Florida. The Republican Party itself is no longer supplying the leadership and the direction. It is the voters and supporters. That makes things unpredictable and incoherent in the long term, but not the short term. In the short term, this can dramatically strengthen the Republican Party and give it better direction. By 2012, the Tea Party and all other associated movements will have to select their choice as the next President. Clearly they don't want Obama back. It is then they will be forced to designate an actual leader.

The changes in the country over the last two years has shifted a major part of the country away from this "cult of personality" or search for a leader of a movement. It is instead trying to become a movement of leaders. It is difficult and chances of success are typically low. But I think in 2010, they might pull it off dramatically changing the composition of the House and the Senate. We could see a different Washington in 2011-2012 but if the movement is to succeed they must continue into 2012 in order to change another third of the Senate and the President.

More on the Tea Party: Not Radicals

This is from my Princeton Fox Blog, so it is more directed at Northeasterners. Here is what I have observed as contrasts between places like Illinois, North Carolina with New Jersey:

I am frankly surprised at the misconceptions and total lack of knowledge that New Jerseyans have of the Tea Party. It is clear the media, journalists, and others have successfully written them off as radicals, racists, and revolutionaries. And you have bought it.

The Tea Party Platform
The Tea Party is a loose confederation of conservatives, libertarians, concerned citizens, unaffiliated voters, conservative democrats, and independents. These groups may have their own top issues or most important agenda items but there are three main common themes:

1. Limited Government (in both power and dollars)
2. Individual Freedom (protections for religion, speech, right to bare arms, states' rights)
3. Free markets (strong rejection of socialism)

Gallup surveys showed the Tea Party's demographics are fairly mainstream. In other words, they are not All-White, All-rich, All-Christian, All-Republican, or All anything.

So really what makes them tick? The massive growth in government spending, the national debt, the increase in government power in areas of the banking sector, finance, healthcare, student loans, and automobiles. This political event alone is what awakened them. And I say awakened for a reason.

Gallup has also consistently shown this is a center-right country, 40% identify themselves as conservatives and other polls show that 50% or more have fiscally conservative views. Only about 26-29% of people identify themselves as liberal. And yet the Democrats won 255 of 435 seats in the House, and 60 of the 100 seats of the Senate. Obama won with 53% of the vote. How is this possible? Why is it that the Republicans don't dominate American politics???

The Awakening of the Right Wing
Like I said, this conservative side has only recently awakened. There is a segment of conservatives that don't vote because they regard both parties as essentially the same (and have a good case for it). However, the political battles and divergence of policies between the two parties in the last year and a half has changed that sentiment and "awakened" this segment. In other words, Obama's left-wing agenda awakened them. Had he practiced some moderation in his policy proposals, this movement might've remained asleep.

Another segment of the Tea Partiers simply don't vote because they don't feel their vote really makes a difference. Most of this type are not politically active at all. They have these beliefs but would rather keep to themselves and keep their beliefs to themselves. They have been convinced by televisions, movies, and other media that their beliefs are radical fringe right-wing ideas and that they would be ridiculed if they got more vocal of them.

Another segment is the far-right wing. They are a very small group, probably about 5-8% of the total population. They are militias, Christian Fundamentalists, most of them probably racist, and are in many respects anarchists. They may align themselves with the Tea Party, but a vast majority of the other groups in the Tea Party regard these people as crazy, just like the rest of the country.

The final segment, the largest, are disenchanted Republicans and fiscal conservatives that felt their party failed them and did not vote in 2008. This group is the most politically active in general, vote often, but this changed due to Republican failures in 2005-2007. They stopped identifying themselves as Republicans and expressed utter frustration with their party and the country as a whole. this segment was likely to awaken regardless of how leftist Obama's agenda was. It is the combination of this group with the others that give the Tea Party tremendous potential. They are reaching into populations of non-voters and even unregistered voters. Not to mention the fact that Independents are steadily realizing that the Tea Party reflects their ideas in regards to the deficit and government spending.

So, are they racist? Maybe 1 in 20 has white supremacist beliefs, AT THE MOST.
Are they anarchists? No, not even close.
Do they advocate overthrow of the government? No
Are they Christian Evangelicals or Fundamentalists? Many of them are, but none of the issues they are demonstrating for are related to religious or social issues. Sometimes yes, but like I said government power and spending are at the top of the list.

And it is important to note, the Tea Party is steadily growing. Gallup and other surveys show that more Americans consider themselves part of the movement in comparison to three months ago.

So what is their objective?
The slogan most often heard at Tea Parties is "Remember in November". A political protest and demonstration that wants to increase energy AND VOTE. What a bunch of psychos right? They are supporting candidates, donating money, hell they are voting in record numbers! MY GOD, they are going to tear this country down!!! They are critical of a Black President! Surely they are racists!!! By that logic, a Black President is infallible.

A Cautionary Note for Northeasterners
Most Americans do not live within 100 miles of New York or Washington. Most Americans do not get their news from the Big 3, or CNN, or MSNBC. Most Americans are not afraid of guns. Most Americans are not afraid of God or Christians. Whatever sophistication or education level you have achieved, remember you are in the minority and if you fail to take movements like the Tea Party seriously, you will remain in the minority in a sort of hyper-urbanized bubble of the East Coast from DC up to Boston. You are a minority and I think its time you do a MUCH better job understanding the rest of the country and their beliefs because in my experience in New Jersey there is a poor level of understanding.

Self-identified Republicans and moderate conservatives in the Northeast seem to be somewhat elitist and arrogant similar to liberal democrats. That must change. Not only Republicans but Northeasterners in general because last I checked the Census projects Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will be losing electoral votes to Texas, Utah, and Georgia.

Its time to make a better effort to understand the rest of the country. Because there are more of them than you, and in November, more of them will win election to the House and Senate while Democrats will likely still dominate the Northeast.

What to do about Obamacare

1. Repeal it
This is extremely difficult and historically not likely. To repeal, the plan would have to pass the House and the Senate (with 60 votes). Even if Republicans regain the House in 2010, they will not have control of the Senate until at least 2012. Even then, they are 19 seats away from controlling 60 seats. The odds of a democrat joining with Republicans to repeal it is nil. We would need 19 Senate wins, control of the House, and we must defeat Obama in 2012. A very tall order.

2. Legal challenges
Numerous states are going to try this. I don't know if this will go anywhere. Some of the most heinous provisions may be defeated but Obamacare as a whole will survive legal challenges.

What about the 2010 election?
If Republicans campaign on repealing Obamacare, it will score points in conservative districts and states. About 25-30 of the competitive House races would qualify along with 2 Senate races. Not enough really considering Republicans were probably going to win almost all of these races anyway. It might be a rallying cry to mobilize conservatives and Tea Partiers in many swing districts if they are not mobilized already. However, as a campaign issue, I don't think it helps in swing district.

Also, I am doubting how wise it would be to keep rehashing our defeat on Healthcare. What about the focus on Jobs this year? Unemployment? The lack of stock market movement in the last 6 months? How about Iran?

There are plenty of things to strike at Obama and Democrats with. The country is probably sick of Healthcare talk. Now that it is passed, I think many political junkies (myself included) will be glad to see it go. If anything, Republicans should slam Obama on the economy relentlessly for the next six months.

Was it Obama's Gettysburg? Well we would have to re-write history. In this case, Pickett's Charge succeeded and Obama now controls the high ground over Gettysburg. The Union Army will have to retreat and lick its wounds, but it was not destroyed. It must replenish itself and regain its composure and focus. Lee's Army (Obama), even with this victory, has completely worn itself out. It won the day but at what cost? Can Obama push through any other part of his agenda? No. Will it help him with a second term? Highly doubtful. Will it save Democrats from big losses in November? No, the best they can hope for is a wash on the issue in November.

What is the Democratic Strategy?
The Democrats will do everything they can to mitigate their losses in November. If they come out with majorities in both chambers, it will be a small victory for them. They will use 2010-2012 to pursue more popular policies and be more responsive to public opinion. That way, this rough term will be forgotten and the Republicans would be hard-pressed to make gains two elections in a row. Obama will have a legitimate shot ata second term, and Republicans would have to fight hard to retake either chamber.

If Democrats maintain majorities in both chambers in 2010, I think Obama can claim the first two years were a success in some measure. Rather than the disaster at Gettysburg, Obama could claim a draw and try for more small-scale operations from this point on. In the end, he got his Healthcare Reform.

If Republicans want to avoid this trek, they need to retake the House in November. That means that it has to be about more than just repealing Healthcare, there are plenty of issues to slam Democrats on. They cannot remain fixated on this battle, they need to move on and look for opportunities to counterattack Lee's weak Army (Obama). Boehner as a strategist is thoroughly unimpressive. McConnell has shown a bit more ability but not much. Steele is outright incompetent. The Union Army will have to find victory through the strength and energy of its soldiers (grassroots campaign) not its generals.

The undemocratic democratic Party

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2010/03/hoyer_process_only_interesting_to_us.html

According to Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer, Americans don't care about the process only results. He used his own phrasing of course but that his the essence of his statement. And it is probably the most undemocratic and un-American sentiment that one can have.

Consider this, the Founding Fathers had difficulty agreeing on a Constitution because of PROCESS. They weren't arguing about policy, they were arguing about process! Taxation without representation? Well that is a process problem. Detaining foreign combatants without Miranda or bringing charges? That's process. When Hoyer states that Americans don't care about process he is completely wrong.

James Madison and others worked so hard on the process the Constitution would set up for lawmaking in Congress. They knew that the deliberate process would be slow and would be frustrating and cumbersome at times, but that was their intent. In fact, they stated the very opposing position of Hoyer, the process is MORE IMPORTANT! Obviously they wanted an effective process that made the country free, prosperous, and secure and therefore built the necessary energy and authority into it. It was a major departure from the Articles of Confederation in that way. So in effect, the energy and decisiveness is exactly where it was intended to be Mr. Hoyer. Current circumstances are completely irrelevant.

This is the attitude of American liberals. The Constitution is a "living document" and must evolve with the times because things are different now, we are different people and this is a different world. It must be made more flexible and more amenable to the results the American people want. That is the argument. The Founding Fathers would disagree. Any flaws or weaknesses in the Constitution that make it ill-suited to the changing times, can be fixed through legal processes such as lawmaking or Constitutional Amendments. This would preserve the integrity and meaning of the Constitution without turning it into a relativistic document that means what it "needs to mean" for us to make progress. We did not end slavery, establish women's suffrage, establish equal protection, or lower the voting age through a Supreme Court decision or some legislative trick.

Unfortunately, the Constitution has been weakened since the 1930s. We even had a President expand the size of the Supreme Court to get HIS interpretation. This more flexible interpretation of the Constitution has led to a power grab by the federal government and a slow and gradual erosion of individual rights.

Ambitious tyrants and oppressive groups always make this argument. The Constitution, the law, or some group is getting in the way of progress and harming the country. We need a strong, centralized, and effective government unhindered by such processes. In fact, Madison addressed this in the Federalist Papers in #10. This is essentially tyranny by the majority. The esoteric processes, as Hoyer would describe them, protect minorities from the potential tyranny of a majority faction. In this case, the democratic party.

These procedures, rules, and Constitutional provisions do indeed make it a challenge to govern the country. And rightly so. That was its purpose. Instead of trying to side-step it, bitch about it, or outright violate it, the majority must work with the minority even when it dominates with such majorities in both Houses and control of the White House. The United States was not built on the theory that elections decide policy and that the loser must step aside. Far from it, elections just give one faction a momentary advantage, nothing more. And I think the moment of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama is ending soon.

Will Healthcare be Obama's Waterloo?

Republicans had often mentioned that if they can defeat Obama's Healthcare plan, it could be his Waterloo, they famous defeat of the mighty Napoleon. There was criticism in that the Republicans did not have the interests of the country in mind but only the political interest of destroying the new Democratic President. Republicans countered with criticisms of the Plan itself but by then realy it did not matter. This was all in the Summer and Fall of 2009 when the Town Halls and Tea Party were becoming louder and angrier.

As doubt rose as to the passage of the Healthcare Plan, Obama and the Democrats got two small victories. The first was in the House, when the more liberal and expansive plan was passed 220-215. The second was in the Senate, when a less expansive but still liberal plan was passed 60-40. In both cases not a single Republican voted for it (well one did in the House but won't the second time around) and again the criticism was they are just obstructing Obama in hopes of arguing in November that he has accomplished nothing.

It is now March 2010, and Healthcare is still being debated. Obama had plenty of issues to choose from in his first two years: foreign policy, Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, unemployment, illegal immigration, energy, education, and Terrorism in general. It is probably fair to say he has spent maybe 15-20% of his time on foreign policy and all of it turned out to be a continuance of the Bush Plan and the McCain Proposal in terms of Iraq and Afghanistan. He has spent 10% on economy with his failed Stimulus Package, Financial Reform, Mortgage Aid, and Bailouts. He is now only beginning to indicate an interest in illegal immigration. Cap and Trade barely passed the House and is stalled in the Senate but Obama does not seem to care too much. He has failed to close Gitmo by his self-imposed deadline and in the end may try the suspects in military tribunals as intended by Bush and McCain.

But his focus for over 50% of the time has been the passing of Healthcare. Everything else has been waiting or moving very slowly through the Congress. Obama is pressing this as his prime priority. This will be the one issue of his first two years.

So really, it is not Republicans that have wanted to turn this into a Waterloo, it is the President himself that has doubled-down his bets and continued to trudge forward with Healthcare, raising the stakes with every day that passes. As his other agenda items collapse, this is the one he wants most. And it is looking more and more like it will fail in the House. This is similar to a general putting everything he has in a single attack, high-risk, high reward. It is not Waterloo, it "Pickett's Charge".

At Gettysburg, General Lee had fought to a stalemate with the Union Army after two days. His Army took heavy losses but was still mostly intact and potent. On the third day he decides to commit the last remaining "fresh" units in his army to an attack on the very center of the Union line, unorthodox and very risky. Rather than withdrawing and trying to find another place to fight or forcing the Yankees to defend DC, he wanted to fight at Gettysburg. He had already committed most of his army to the battle and had not obtained victory. He was now going to commit the last portion of it. The attack failed miserably. Lee's defeat permanently crippled the Army of Northern Virginia. It lost 29,000 troops including some of its most experienced and capable soldiers. It would never again have the strength to directly attack the Union Army.

The same is happening here. Obama has used up a lot of energy in his vast "political army". With dominating majorities in both chambers of Congress he has had the firepower but in every battle up to now, he has managed only stalemates or minor victories. Now, as the tide of the battle in Washington is quickly turning against the Democrats, rather than withdrawing or attempting a more modest attack to gain what they can, Obama is going to hurl himself and his party one more time against the Republicans at the exact same spot on the battlefield. It is risky. If he fails, his party will limp into November having accomplished only a failed Stimulus Package, unpopular bailouts, a still open Gitmo, and no progress on Healthcare, Immigration, or Energy.

I give Obama credit for putting it all on the line. He is not a coward or spineless. If the Healthcare Bill dies in the House, as I think it will, Obama's political capital will have been spent, he will have a far more hostile Congress after the November elections and will not be in a position to "attack" or push any of his agenda items for the remainder of the first term.

As in Gettysburg, the Union Army did not force Lee to attack them and in fact did not expect any attack at all. It was Lee who decided on his own to take the gamble. Here, Obama has made the decision to put this much time and energy on this healthcare plan. It will be his Gettysburg, his Pickett's Charge, should it fail.

Republican Strategy Session: how to win in November

Here is a possible strategy for the Republican Party going forward:

First, the GOP is still not popular and there is no getting around that. Despite the victories of Scott Brown, Chris Christie, and Bob McDonnell, it should not be assumed that America is ready to go Red and are touting the party. Those elections were unique. First, Christie and McDonnell campaigned on local issues, not national. Although many of their ideas and the problems facing their state are applicable to the nation as a whole, it cannot be concluded that the rest of the country, particularly independents, are going to turnout in those numbers and vote so heavily on the side of Republicans. Not all Republicans are Scott Brown.

Realizing that we must now ask: Okay, they won't vote for Republicans just because their Republicans, how can we get out the vote? If you run as the opposition party, yes you will gain ground against an unpopular President and an unpopular Congress but it may not be enough. Usually when the national government is unpopular, turnout is pushed way low. That favors Republicans, as said before but we need to gain 39 seats in the House and 10 seats in the Senate. Being the "other party" is no guarantee of retaking either chamber.

Candidates must run personalized campaigns, not really as a Republican candidate, but a reform candidate and in many cases the conservative candidate, tailored to their personality and the personality of their district. Talking up the party is not helpful. So what do candidates talk about? Candidates need to learn as much as they can about the Tea Party, its principles, and what those people want. They also need to talk to other conservatives that regard themselves as independents and may not have voted in recent elections. Republicans are feeling good but we need to make conseratives feel good. About 40% of this country is conservative while only 27% is liberal. By reaching out to conservatives, particularly those that are unaffiliated with the Republican Party, candidates can tap into a voting block that has for the most part sat out elections over the past four years.

Okay, from the candidate's perspective, it is focus on grassroots, run conservative and run reform. What about the Party? Does the Party just keep quiet? Yes. The current Republican Party, the incumbents in Congress, and the leadership needs to shut up and prepare to step aside if necessary. We cannot allow ego or turf wars to thwart the growth of the party.

People do not like them and do not trust them. In particular: Michael Steele, John McCain, and Mitt Romney are not favorites of conservatives at all. John Boehner and Mitch McConnell invoke a collective yawn. They may be conservative but they do not inspire much enthusiasm. The Party establishment must keep quiet and let this conservative movement manifest itself without intervention in order to see it reach its full potential.

In some cases, the party bosses will see newly elected Congressmen and Senators that will probably not be their ideal choice. But for the good of the country, they need to let conservatives decide through primaries who will be the new generation of Republicans that will retake this country from socialists and radicals that don't care about the prosperity of this country and only take care of parochial interests among their small but loyal base.

Conservatives are not loyal partisans. If they were, Republicans would dominate year in and year out (like I said, conservatives 40%, liberals 27%). Conservatives will stay home and not vote at all if they think both parties are garbage. On the other side, liberals got REALLY excited about Obama and nearly all of them turned out to vote in 2008. That will not happen in 2010.

Who is the future of the Republican party? Who will be the Republican Presidential nominee in 2012? The odds are, we don't know them yet. I am beginning to think it will not be a familiar name.

Who should run for President?

It is pretty obvious Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Santorum want to run for President. People like Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal are probably strongly considering it as well. Some of these names I like more than others but I have a couple of suggestions.

What I look for in a Presidential Candidate
A record of reducing the size of government, cutting spending and other waste, leadership in times of crisis, political courage, and an ability to communicate clearly to not only conservatives but independents. A strong knowledge of foreign policy and economics is also preferable. I don't care about experience by itself, conservative credentials, endorsements, fundraising ability, geographical origin, gender, race, or hair color.

1. Mitch Daniels, Governor Indiana
Daniels cut spending during a period when almost every state was increasing its spending. He introduced a health savings account plan that has been shown to lower premiums, he cut property taxes as well as simplifying them. Finally, he brought a period of economic growth to Indiana just before the recession. He is conservative on economic and fiscal issues, a federalist, but also proven to be able to "get things done" rather than just spout out rhetoric. He is smart and well-spoken. The only negative is that he is on record of saying he doesn't want to run for President. He is also on record being a bit critical of the national Republican Party (a positive for me but not for the Republican Party that would nominate him).

2. Bobby Jindal, Governor Louisiana
Jindal doesn't quite have the list of fiscal accomplishments but has been a popular leader and more than capable of dealing with a rough situation down there. Replacing a fairly incompetent governor, Jindal has kept the state relatively stable. He is a true conservative as well, intelligent charismatic. On the negatives, his accomplishments are not long. He is young, perhaps too young. Finally, it is important he is able to stand up to the Party, which he has shown a reluctance to do at times. He needs to be tested a bit more perhaps. It could be that by 2011-2012 he will have completed a distinguished term as governor.

3. General David Petraeus, Commander of Central Command
The hero of Iraq and probably the best general we have, Petraeus also has a strong background in regular foreign policy and public policy. He has a masters from Princeton and can speak knowledgably on almost any subject. His ability to handle Congress in hearings shows his ability to communicate and to withstand criticism is very strong. He is adored by his men and his leadership is beyond question. However, Petraeus's real value would not be in the fiscal area, in my opinion. He is also an unknown, who knows how he would handle the political world. It is not like commanding troops in battle. He is still high on my list.

4. Mike Pence, Congressman Indiana
Another Hoosier, but this one has experience, votes conservatively year in and year out, and has been a more vocal member of the House Caucus. He is smart and charismatic as well. However, he has no record of leadership or accomplishment outside of the Congress and in fact even that record is a bit short. I am also pretty averse to legislators in general. He would be a fine choice but he has a bit of baggage more than likely since he served in Congress during the Bush years where there was more spending.

I am a huge fan of Paul Ryan (Rep. from Wisconsin), John Thune (Senator from South Dakota), and the new governor of Virginia Bob McDonnell. However, I would rather have those three where they are. The House Republicans need to start reforming themselves and putting in younger leadership. In my opinion Paul Ryan should become the new leader of the Republicans and hopefully the Speaker if they retake the House. The same for Thune in the Senate. We need great people in both chambers as well as a new President.

Romney, Huckabee, and Pawlenty are good men but they are fairly moderate. They speak too much to moderates and want to be loved by all. I don't think they have the political courage and leadership necessary. They also lack good track records of reducing spending or reducing the size of government. Unfortunately for the Republican Party, there is a shortage of female leaders. Michelle Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, and Kay Bailey Hutchison are excellent but none are really there yet in terms of accomplishment and leadership. They also have shown no ability to appeal to anyone other than their base.

Noticably missing from the list is Sarah Palin. Palin is VERY charismatic and adored by many, her policy expertise is steadily growing as well. However, she clearly has gaping holes in her knowledge and is inexperienced. 2-3 years as governor of the smallest state of the union is insufficient in my opinion. She clearly has political courage and leadership qualities but needs to build up the rest of the resume. She is young and will be a voice for conservatives for years to come. If she runs in 2016 or 2020 that would be excellent, but I think 2012 might not be the right election for her.

Others:
Newt Gingrich is too old and clearly wants to be on television more than anything else. Rick Santorum has no record of accomplishments and too overly focused on social issues, which are not relevant in 2010 and won't be in 2012. Scott Brown is a moderate so people need to stop pointing to his victory as a sign of things to come. Mike Huckabee is not qualified to be President.

Any thoughts? Additions?

Sen. Evan Bayh retires

Centrist Democrats running for the exits

Add another centrist or pragmatic democrat to the list of members running for the exits. The Democratic Party has been able to keep retirements fairly low (14 House members, 3 Senators), but the type of members leaving is interesting. Blue Dog Democrats in Kansas, Tennessee, Alabama, and Arkansas are choosing not to run again or are switching parties. The conservative Democrat, a member that is fiscally conservative, socially moderate, is becoming an endangered species.

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) was a respectable democrat, a centrist, and someone many thought was going to run for President in 2008 and still might in 2012. He states that the partisan fighting in Washington has worn him out and that he would rather do public service in some other capacity. Ironic considering his party dominated both Houses and actually has little need for bipartisanship of any kind to get things done. He is, in effect, stating that his party has become hyperpartisan, refusing to negotiate with moderates or conservatives, and has pushed such a radical agenda that the Republicans only real move is to filibuster. Massachusetts also changed things. The people there spoke clearly to Washington, yet none of the Democratic leadership has heard. The people WANT the minority party to have the power to block legislation if it is repugnant. If they were frustrated at the paralysis from the filibuster, they would've voted in the heavily favored Martha Coakley.

In the end, bipartisanship is an empty concept. In one instance it is passing a mixed law with ideas from both parties with minimal controversy. In a second instance it involves compromise between the party leaderships, forcing tough decisions on controversial issues. In another instance it may involve simply listening to leaders of the other party, the appearance of pragmatism. But in the end it is more about accomplishment then actual procedure.

Bipartisan approval of bills is reliant on the nature of the legislation itself, the political strength/weakness of either party, the popularity of the legislation, and the negotiation skills of the players. There is no "acting" in a bipartisan manner, it is results based. Legislation is only bipartisan if members from both parties actually vote for it in significant numbers. Until then it is just another bill and the Congress is acting as "business as usual".

Politicians are also notorious for using bipartisanship and compromise against each other. Democrats in particular have used it on the deficit. They cite the expensive Prescription Drug Benefit Plan of Bush, No Child Left Behind, and the big deficits of 2008 and 2009. They fail to mention a number of democrats voted for the Drug Benefit Plan (including the liberal lion Kennedy) and that many liberals wanted a BIGGER and more expensive plan. The NCLB was also supported by some democrats (Kennedy again), but dems love to smack it as an underfunded failure. They also neglect to mention that democrats controlled Congress from 2007 until now, meaning they voted for and approved the Bush deficits of 2008 and 2009. Keep in mind, the House writes the budget in reality, not the President.

Bush and Republicans acted in bipartisan fashion, working compromises that went against conservative values in these instances but democrats actually use it AGAINST THEM in rhetorical exchanges on the Floor of Congress and on television. The lesson here is clear. Do not compromise with the opposing party for the purpose of bipartisanship (getting a few of them to support legislation) or the appearance of bipartisanship. It is bad policy and bad politics.

Sen. Bayh was skilled at working deals with Republicans on numerous issues, as well as joining with them on legislation. I am willing to bet he was more successful in getting his legislation through prior to 2008 than he is now. His party has shown a disinterest in non-controversial mixed legislation, in negotiation, or in listening to the other party let alone dissension within its own. Bad governance, bad politics.

The Democratic Party is in deep trouble. If it cannot change course, we may very well witness a miraculous comeback by the Republicans, retaking the House and moving to within a vote or two of a majority in the Senate.

Political Parties

Neither political party in the United States is popular, and for good reason. The Republicans failed to keep themselves under control when it came to spending, the size of government, and corruption. In 2008, they got scared and suppored a group of centrist Republicans (Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee) and one moderate conservative McCain. Conservatives were frustrated and did not come with the energy as they did in 2004. Moderates swung strongly for the charismatic Obama and his promise of change. Most believed the country was going in the wrong direction, so why not vote for change?

Well now moderates realize they don't like the change. Conservatives are infuriated at the radical Obama agenda and have come with energy less than a year after getting crushed. Instead of supporting the alternative Republican Party, they formed a grassroots movement, known as the Tea Party in relation to the tossing of British Tea off ships in Boston Harbor way back when. At that time, Americans despised the fact they could only buy British Tea, choice was taken away. They were angry at taxation without representation. Finally, they were angry that the British Government was so distant and out of touch, they could not represent their interests.

Today's Tea Party is not quite the same but some similarities are there. It is anti-centralized government. It is about economic freedom in terms of choice when it comes to Healthcare and other sectors controlled by the government. GM and Chrysler are beginning to resemble the East India Trading Company. Government involvement in commerce is in direct contradiction to the beliefs of our Founding Fathers. It is one of the reasons they rebelled. They were angry at taxes, something that is going to rise under Obama and perhaps even more so in the future to pay off the debt. Obama has not used military force or police power but instead uses the softer left-leaning media, journalists, and hollywood to shame conservatives into thinking they are racist, sexist, stupid, radical, knuckle-dragging idiots who hate the poor. Not to mention they are all white, rich, and Evangelicals. At last, Washington D.C. is clearly out of touch. The Congress demographically does not resemble the U.S. as a whole. The people living in that area certainly do not (90% voted for Obama). The media elite do not. In fact, Washington D.C. is basically a fish bowl. How can a fish bowl on the east coast govern a country of 310 million people?

The people are angry. In this atmosphere they might actually protest, contribute time and money to the cause, and God forbid VOTE against the incumbents.

Tea Partiers still don't like the Republican Party and for good reason. I have found numerous examples of the national party getting involved in local elections, trying to find the candidate they think is "most electable" and "friendly to the agenda of the party". That is not what Tea Partiers want. They want independent-minded candidates, conservative, and yes a little extreme in their ideas. Extreme because the status quo has shifted so far in the other extreme (socialism) that only a extreme response will return us to any kind of equilibrium or better yet, an actual free market. Party-backed candidates are just well-known, well-financed, and experienced politicians. Most have no relation to the ideas and sentiment of the Tea Party movement and only want to take advantage of the momentum to gain office.

A good goal for Tea Partiers is to go head-to-head with party-backed candidates in all primaries and blow them out of the water. It won't be long before the Tea Party Movement has a major voice in the party, and the establishment politicians are forced out. The new guard must be brought in and the old guard retired. It is hard to win back independents and lost conservatives when you have the same leaders from 2004-2006. People like Michael Steele, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell need to be replaced.

If the Republicans nominate a moderate candidate, it should not be discouraging or press people to find a third candidate. Better a spineless centrist Republican for one term then a socialist democrat. Vote for him in November but make sure you find a real conservative to challenge him in the next primary. In my opinion, incumbents should be challenged in primaries as much as possible. Primaries should be very competitive and active. This strong lean toward incumbents needs to stop. The American political system needs to change its approach, from centralized partisan establishment to decentralized popular systems. When Congress performs poorly, we should not become apathetic and refuse to vote as some form of protest. That is like quitting your job instantly because you didn't get a raise. Now your not making any money. You don't show up for work, you won't get paid. You want a higher salary, look for a new job.

There are many Republicans I wish were not in office right now and wish they would be challenged by better candidates. The political party is a mechanism used to better represent our interests in the federal government. We should not take the perspective of the political party and hope the Republicans "absorb" the Tea Party Movement so they can succeed. I don't care so much that the Republican Party is successful, I care more that the right policies are implemented.