The Discomfort of Sitting on the Fence is Evident...

In that sense, we knew in June of 2008 who the Republican candidate would be in 2012, since all of us (well, those of us willing to be intellectually honest at least) knew that John McCain had no chance, with or without Sarah Palin. The only difference between 2008 and 2012 is that Romney, at least, stands a chance to win.

And so what if he does? Then we get four more years of establishment politics. Four more years of marketing, four more years of fascitalism, of kicking the can, of ignoring the problem.

Two years ago I interviewed three candidates for our district – Renacci, Miller, and Schiffer. Schiffer was a bit off, Miller a bit immature, and Renacci would win. I voted Renacci in the primary, and I’ve regretted it ever since. Renacci is establishment. Renacci is the old way. If I’d've had the courage of my convictions, I’d've voted for the man who most closely aligned with my principles. If I’d've had that courage, I’d've voted for Schiffer. He would have lost the primary, but at least I’d've stuck true to my word to myself and others.

This time, I won’t betray myself. I don’t know who I’ll vote for in the primary yet, but I know who I won’t: Romney. I don’t trust him, and I don’t like my candidate being chosen for me four years in advance.

(If we wanted to do it right, we’d have a national primary playoff system, whereby states would have three rounds of voting. The first round would consist of all available candidates. The second, a month later, would be the top four vote getters (tallied in a way that mirrors the electoral college). The final one, again a month later, would be the top 2 vote getters. Seems to me that’s the fair way to ensure that an ideology held by similar candidates isn’t washed out by virtue of a flawed system.)

The Mayflower Compact

In the name of God Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord King James by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, king, defender of the fait, etceteras.

Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politick; for our better ordering, & preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony:  unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the year the reign of our sovereign lord King James of England, France, and Ireland the 18th and of Scotland the 54th, Anno Dominie, 1620.

This is the Mayflower Compact. Now, I’d like to point a couple of things out here.

• What are they doing? They are combining themselves together into a civil body politick.” In other words, they are forming a government.
• Why are they doing it? For our better ordering & preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid. The ends aforesaid, that is, “for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country .” Do you get that? Not only was God part of the equation, it was the furtherance of his kingdom that was the primary objective of the body politick they formed! Remember that next time they tell you we’re not a Christian nation.
• Who did it? Who formed the government? God? The King? The governor? No. The People formed the government. On purpose. And once they formed it, they pledged to it all due submission and obedience. They migrated from a “dread sovereign” – willing to risk life and limb, as many of them eventually did – and before even setting foot on Cape Cod they formed yet another government. So, what was the difference between that which they fled and that which they formed? Just that – they formed it. The government they created was justified and legitimate precisely because it was they the people that formed it.  John Quincy Adams later remarked that it was “perhaps the only instance, in human history, of that positive, original social compact, which speculative philosophers have imagined as the only legitimate source of government.”

The Mayflower Compact. 1620. Wow.

I point all this out because our republic was founded by we the people, and that concept even in 1776 was not new and novel to the colonists. It was a concept that was instinctive to even the earliest pilgrims, and is no less legitimate now a source of government than it was then.

The Revolutionary War’s Root Cause

Better War Through Deficit Spending

Now, let’s move forward in time to the “root cause” of the revolutionary war. Many can claim that the root cause of the war was the Boston Tea Party and the quartering of soldiers in its aftermath. Some may point to the Stamp Act. Some may point to the Declaration of Independence. I would submit to you that those were not the cause, they were just symptoms.

No, I’d say the root cause of the war was something we all know far too well today.

It all started with a young officer (some say captain, some say major) that got into an inconsequential skirmish that turned out not to be so inconsequential after all – it led to the French and Indian war in the late 1750s. It was an expensive war, and England was ill equipped to equip for it, but they won anyway – with the use of a novel new device that allowed them to outfit their men:  deficit spending.

Good for them. But at the conclusion of the war in 1763 (and this is one thing that makes us different), they, Parliament, felt compelled to find a way to pay back the huge debts they’d accumulated during the war. So, they tried to tax the colonies. It made logical sense – the war was fought over here, and the colonists could very well pitch in to help pay for it (no need to mention the payment in lives we’d already made). And Americans were not generally averse to sending money, when asked.

But Parliament wasn’t asking – Parliament was taxing, and we had a problem with that. It’s one thing for the governor to tax a colony because after all they had representation in the colony. It was another thing entirely for a far-away Parliament in which the colonies had no representation to do the same. That was unacceptable. So, we said no, they said yes, two if by sea, shots fired, we win, they lose, game over. Welcome to America.

But it all started with a parliament using deficit spending to win the war. The lesson? Deficit spending is bad for you.

The officer who fired the shot that started the war that led to the spending that led to the taxation that led to the Revolution? George Washington. I’ll pause for a moment for the lunatic fringe to shout out “see – it was a conspiracy all along!”

The Constitution’s Drafting and Ratification

Fast forward again, this time to 1787, Philadelphia. We’ve won our independence as thirteen individual states – and in this sense, the word “state” is used in a way that would confuse many Americans today. The King didn’t capitulate to the United States, but rather to thirteen independent states. We – and the world – viewed Virginia, and Massachusetts, and New York not just to be peers with each other, but peers with the rest of the states in the world. States like France. And Spain. And England.

Oh, for the good ole days.

Anyway, we’re in Philly, and we’re trying to clean up the mess that the Articles of Confederacy has left us. The Confederacy was formed in a time where we were very leery of anything akin to a national government – an entity that could grow out of control and become tyrannical. The states were jealous of their newfound standing on the world stage and not wont to surrender power unnecessarily to a third party. At the same time, however, they recognized that the cooperation and unison that enabled them to defeat the greatest military power on the face of the earth would also be necessary to secure themselves against external threats. So some kind of federation – much akin to today’s EU – was in order.

The problem was, the Articles of Confederacy left Congress so weak as to be entirely ineffective in accomplishing its stated aims of security. This was a problem Washington, who’d gone more than one night without necessary provisions from Congress – was keen to see not be repeated.

Nationalist turned Republican

So, what to do. The gentlemen from Virginia – led by James Madison (Jefferson was overseas at the time, and Patrick Henry wanted nothing to do with it) had in mind to not just amend the Articles of Confederation, but to throw them out entirely. And, this not being his first rodeo, he aligned the appropriate political powers to ensure that it was the Virginians – the largest colony in the federation – who framed the debate with what they called the Virginia Plan.

What ensued over the summer was a political discussion that embodied three philosophies – two of which we know all too well today. The monarchists, led by Hamilton, the Nationalists, led by Madison and Washington, and the Federalists, among whom was George Mason. Kind of like the Kennedys, Democrats, and Republicans of today. In the end, though Madison did succeed in framing the debate, the Virginia Plan that called for a national government was rejected.

A few observations here:

• First, the idea that there was this great consensus amongst a group of like minded men that formed the Constitution is an illusion.
• Second, for three different factions to get anything done, it requires compromise. As such, the Constitution is a product of compromise. And compromise is very nearly never perfect. It’s time we acknowledged that and accepted it for what it is. Even the framer’s acknowledged it – that’s why there’s an amendment process.
• Third, of these three factions, two of them fairly closely aligned to each other when it came to the role of the national or federal government –both the monarchists and the nationalists thought the general governments’ role should be far stronger, and the states far weaker as a consequence – than what the federalists would ever accept.

Having said that, the federalists, at least in the short term, won the day on more than their fair share of points. Not, however, to a level acceptable to George Mason, who left Philadelphia without signing the Constitution. A telling sign…

So, a campaign ensued in which the Constitution’s supporters, known as Federalists including Hamilton and Madison, and the anti-Federalists (which, back in the day were known as republicans, not anti-Federalists) fought for the hearts and minds of the people. Eventually, the Constitution was ratified by 8 states, and at that point it became a case not of “do we like it?” but “do we want to be left out?” Virginia made it official by becoming #9. They even made it complete with a Virginia Kickback – better known as a promise to carve the nation’s capital out of parts of Virginia and Maryland…better known now as Washington, D.C.

Elections Have Consequences

So, Washington was elected our first President. But now you know that he considered himself a nationalist. That fact cannot be overstated, because it was Washington who had the unique opportunity to shape the entire executive branch, and he surrounded himself with federalists, who were almost universally wedded to being either monarchists or nationalists. Put another way:  the administration of our first federal government was populated almost entirely by people who didn’t consider themselves republicans (Jefferson being a notable exception).

Not only did he get to populate the executive branch, but he was unique in his opportunity to shape the judiciary. Now, country may have changed since the 1700s, but politics really hasn’t. And though Washington sat through a Constitutional Convention in which the ideas of a national government were debated and defeated, Washington was at heart a nationalist, and as such he appointed nationalist judges to the bench. That, really, is profound. Think about not four or five liberals on the bench, but nine.

So, why is the discussion of the court important? Because although it was republicans that won the day in Philadelphia with the framing of the Constitution, it was nationalists who managed, through the judiciary, to pervert it to their own ends. Elections matter, even if you’re electing a hero.

The Commerce Clause

Washington’s successor, John Adams, was also a nationalist, and he too had the opportunity to appoint justices. His most important appointment came at the end of his term, with the appointment of Chief Justice John Marshall. And that is where the action of a single man over 200 years ago has a long-reaching impact on today’s congressional debate, and it has everything to do with the Commerce Clause.

While I could spend significant time here detailing just why John Marshall was ill-suited to the task at hand, I’ll simply focus on one case:  Gibbons vs. Ogden.

• The situation:  The state of New York had granted a 30 year monopoly on the navigation of steamboats on NY rivers to the inventor of the steamboat, Robert Fulton and his business partner. Such a monopoly would necessarily exclude all others with competing steamboats from operating, including Gibbons, who had been granted a license by Congress to navigate waters.
• The question:  does New York have the right to exclude out-of-state ferry operators from navigating their rivers?
• The answer: according to Marshall, was no.  Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:  “To regulate commerce…among the several states…” gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

The problem was that in order to reach this conclusion, one had to define “navigation” as “commerce.” As in, say, “I’m going to ‘commerce’ my way through the crowd…” Yes. Just flows right off your tongue, doesn’t it?

Without stretching the meaning of commerce in this way, Congress (and the federal government) had no enumerated power allowing them to interfere in a state’s affairs like this. So, Marshall stretched and found something that many claim simply wasn’t there.

The ramifications of the decision are important, because it extended the meaning of commerce in a very elastic way. Subsequent courts would restrict the reach of the commerce clause, but it wouldn’t be permanent. When in the 1930s the court began to strike down a succession of New Deal programs instituted by FDR based on a narrow interpretation of the commerce clause, he threatened to pack the court with his own justices. The mere threat caused two of the courts members to suddenly reverse their position vis a vis the commerce clause, and it was restored to the elasticity it enjoyed under Marshall. So much for separate and equal branches.

As a result, the Supreme Court became a rubber stamp on the actions of an out-of-control, progressive socialist. Pray that history doesn’t repeat itself. Pray hard.

So, with an elastic commerce clause, is there validity in arguing that congress over-reached its authority with the implementation of the health care bill? Put another way, can health care or health care insurance be considered commerce?

My opinion is that, based on the line of reasoning above, the court is likely to find that the answer is yes. Look at it this way:  obtaining health care insurance requires an exchange of money for the service provided. That service is likely to entail other goods or services that, at one point, crossed state lines. More to the point, it is unlikely not to entail other goods or services that at one point crossed state lines. Virtually everything in this day and age – MRI machines, pacemakers, scalpels, even needles, is made in one state (or country) and crosses into another. Since health insurance impacts those goods and services, health insurance – even health insurance purchased from a local provider by someone who has never set foot out of Ohio – could, for purposes of the interstate commerce clause, be considered subject to  congressional regulation. I don’t like that, but it’s a logical train of thought.

Having said all that, I believe that the case could still be made that, supposing Congress does have a right to regulate the health insurance companies, there is no enumerated power granting them the right to compel US citizens to purchase healthcare, or, to provide funds to be used by the federal government in subsidizing other people’s healthcare, the 17th Amendment not withstanding. That is, there is no enumerated power allowing them to compel citizens to create commerce – by virtue of forcing the purchase of health care – where otherwise there might be none.

I do not know that we’d win, but I believe that the case can be made, and it is a stronger case than an argument that health insurance isn’t a form of commerce.

General Welfare

So, with the commerce clause out of the way, we turn to the General Welfare clause in determining whether within its penumbras it grants congress the power to compel you to buy health insurance.

Let’s start with articulating the two places in the Constitution where the term “general welfare” exists. First, in the preamble:

We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

My position is that preambles, from a legal sense, are nothing more than nice-to-haves. That is, they may provide insight as to what the founders were thinking, but they in and of themselves don’t carry the force of law. Incidentally, this isn’t the only preamble in the Constitution. Another excellent example is the 2nd Amendment, where the italicized portion below is the preamble leading up to the actual amendment (this version of the amendment, without two commas, is the version that was distributed to the states for ratification):

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

With that aside complete, let’s move on to the second instance, in Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…

Now, the Constitution enumerates the powers that have been delegated to it by the people. Furthermore, the 10th Amendment (some would say superfluously, including Madison, who wrote it) explicitly calls out that those powers not enumerated are reserved to the states, or the people. The question before us is this:  does “provide for the…general welfare” amount to an enumerated, though highly ambiguous, power that can be used to justify anything remotely connected to the welfare of the people?

The answer, I believe, is no. I turn to Federalist #41, where James Madison – himself a nationalist (at the time), so no friend of the Republicans – to buttress my argument:

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.
Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it [...

…] But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

So, for those of you who are just waking up after that grammar lesson, here’s the point he’s making:  If you consider Article I, Section 8 in its entirety, the extent of the phrase “general welfare” is clear. Section 8 is basically divided in three sections:  here’s why we’re giving Congress power, here’s what the powers are, and here’s how you can go about exercising those powers. Article I, Section 8, is included here in it’s entirety, complete with helpful color coding to identify the three sections of the Article:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;–And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

To further make the point:  you cannot very well separate the enumerated powers from the preceding generalization of those powers, because they are all part of the same sentence. Granted, that is one awfully long sentence, but it does not qualify as a run-on in the classic sense and its structure remains straightforward to those with the intellectual honesty to recognize it.

It doesn’t say “and universal healthcare and universal higher education for all.” Not in there. Nowhere.

The questions are:  will the courts agree? How long will it take? And what will be in place in the meantime?

I have no idea.

The Power Lies with Us

The solution, ultimately, lies with us. It is still a representative government formed by the consent of the people of the several states, and we still have an opportunity to repeal the bill, since we still have elections. But it’s a long road, and requires patience, resolve and principles.

• First, we have to have a good showing in November. We will, but don’t delude yourself into thinking that we’ll end up with Republican majorities in either house. It’s a lot to ask. Having said that, I think it’s safe to say that the filibuster-proof majority will be a thing of the past come January, and that’s hugely important.
• Second, even if in our wildest dreams we succeed in gaining control of both houses, that simply stops the bleeding; it doesn’t heal the wound. Congress couldn’t pass a bill to repeal the abomination that Obama would sign. So we must have patience.
• Because finally, in 2012, we get the next opportunity to replace a Marxist socialist with a patriotic American. But we must choose our nominee carefully – John McCain need not apply. It is not enough to win the presidency back. We must win it back with principles.

It took over 100 years for the progressives’ dark stars to align for this moment. We must understand that the fight will never end, and it may very well take 100 years to undo the damage they’ve done. We must understand that we may fail, but we must try.

Our nation’s ancestors arrived in 1620 on the Mayflower pledging to form a government to the glory of God, only to have so many of them wiped out by disease, attack, and brutal weather.

Our nation’s founders pledged in 1776 their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Too many of them gave all so that liberty could flourish.

Now today, we, our nation’s keepers, are being asked to make sacrifices that, frankly, pale in comparison to those of the forefathers. Our lives are a pittance compared to theirs.
Will our numbers be great enough? Our resolve strong enough? Our patience long enough? And our faith deep enough?

Are we willing to form our own compact?

I’m going to talk a bit about the grassroots folks that have sprung up over the past 18 months. I want it to be known that I do not, and cannot, claim to speak for the movement in general, or any grassroots organization in particular. Just as we do not have a single leader but many; we also do not have a single spokesperson – we are each our own. I have far too much respect for the people within the movement – many of whom I am proud to call my friends – to presume to speak on their behalf.

So, my thoughts here tonight are just that. My thoughts. My perspective. Others might have perspectives that differ from mine and I encourage you to reach out to those folks in order to learn them. And I in turn encourage those gestures to be returned. That’s what this evening is all about.

So, who are we?

We have been called a variety of things. Grassroots; 9/12ers; tea partiers. Right-wing nutjobs, astroturfers, and other less flattering names. Some have even gone so far as to falsely blame for us for lawlessness, including this week’s tragedy at the IRS office in Austin.

Quite frankly, you can call us whatever you want. But the truth is, we’re just ordinary Americans. That’s it. Ordinary folks.

Up until 18 months ago, many of us – myself included – weren’t involved in politics. Most of us followed politics, but getting involved was another matter entirely. We were busy with our lives – with our work, with our kids, with our stuff. We were distracted easily by shiny things. In the meantime, we either trusted others to represent our interests, or we had written off the system as unfixable, knowing that our voice wouldn’t be heard anyway.

We were, in a word, apathetic.

Then, in the election of 2008, we saw two parties nominate two people, and quite frankly we didn’t think that either of them represented us. Now, John McCain is an honorable man. A good man. An American hero. But he is a man that, regrettable, doesn’t share many of our conservative views. Barack Obama? Well, we had a tiny suspicion that, he just might be a flat-out Marxist socialist.

It turns out we were right.

So, with two parties nominating people that barely represented their own parties much less the electorate, we began to get engaged. McCain may not have been our first choice, but when faced with the alternative, we were willing to swallow hard. We worked the phones, walked the precincts, and delivered the flyers.

But it wasn’t enough. We didn’t carry the day. And, beginning not in January, but in November, our concerns began to turn into reality.

And our fear turned into anger.

Ours is a country founded on ideas. God-given rights, not man-granted privileges. Responsibility, not dependence. Liberty, not tyranny.  And for over two centuries, this grand experiment, borne out of the blood of patriots, has been the envy of the world. This is the country that freed the slaves, that stormed the beaches of Normandy, that first set foot on the moon.

And now, we are at a crossroads. We fear – we genuinely fear – that the country of Madison and Jefferson, of Lincoln And Reagan, is in mortal peril. We do not say that as an exaggeration. This is not hyperbole. We literally fear that our children will not have a shining city on a hill to pass on to generations yet to come.

That is why we’re angry. That is why we’re here. And quite frankly, we cannot fathom why more Americans are not as terrified as we are.

Now at this point, some of you may be thinking to yourselves, “yes, we do share that fear. But where were you? Where were you 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 25 years ago? You call yourself grassroots. Well, so do I. And I’ve been grassroots for longer than some of you have been alive.”

I have an answer to that.

You’re right.

Many of us weren’t there. We don’t have the history. We don’t have the tenure. We don’t have the experience. You’re absolutely right. And I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to you for all of the heavy lifting and thankless hours you have devoted to the cause.

Many of us weren’t there. But we’re. Here. Now. We’re here now, and although we may not have as much tenure as you in grassroots building, we are every bit as American as you, and every bit as concerned as you. And, where our Principles are Common, we want to work with you toward our Common Cause.

Where our Principles are Common. That touches on another point, a point that is of great concern to many of us here. It can perhaps best be illustrated by a quote:

“I consider myself a progressive Republican. I am liberal on social issues and I think the party is at a place where social issues shouldn’t be the issues that define the party. I’ve taken heat, but in fairness to me, I’m a different generation than the people that are giving me heat. I’m 24 years old I”m not in my forties, I’m not in my 50s and older and I think there’s just such a generation gap that the people who don’t understand me I actually take it as a compliment. Sort of this new young Republican can come forward and make progress and be successful in ways that this party has currently failed.”

This is not your ordinary, run-of the-mill, woman-on-the-street. No, this is the woman the State-Run Media is working hard to cultivate as the heir-apparent to the Republican brand. This is Meghan McCain.

And so, for us, it really isn’t about party. For too long our nation – and no doubt many of the people in this room – have viewed the ideological battle being waged as being between Republicans and Democrats. I’m here to tell you that I don’t see it that way at all, and I don’t think that many of the ordinary Americans in this room and across this nation who have melted switchboards and crowded townhalls and filled public squares see it that way. For us, there is little difference at this point between Republicans and Democrats.

That’s not the battle. The real battle is instead between Progressives and Conservatives. And while you may not find many conservatives in the Democrat party, you will find a dismaying number of progressives in the Republican party. This is not a new problem, of course. The disease of progressivism – which has as its basis a reverence for Darwin with a little Marx thrown in – can be traced at least back to Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican. It was personified in Woodrow Wilson, and has been present in varying degrees ever since – FDR and LBJ. Carter and Clinton. And now, Bush and Obama. Progressivism knows no party lines.

Where, then, is the party to represent Conservatism – which has as its basis a reverence for God, for country, for Constitution? Where, then, is the party to represent the ordinary American? The marketing materials of the Republican party would have you believe that it is them, but I would submit to you that if that were the case, we wouldn’t have Lindsey Graham or Olympia Snowe in the Senate or John McCain as a former Presidential nominee.

Where do we, as conservatives and Constitutionalists, as the heart of this country, go?

I believe the answer to that is still in the hands of the leadership of the Republican party at the county, state, and national levels all across this country. I believe there is an opportunity to reach out to these ordinary Americans, and say “we hear you, and we want you involved.” I believe that can be done.

But if it is not done soon the opportunity will be lost. The window will close. And the party will never recover. And I fear – and again, I say, this is only my perspective – that if that happens, if that gap is not bridged and that anger translates at the ballot box, then not only will the party not recover, but the country may not either. Because if we’re divided, they win. And we cannot afford that.

And that is why I am here tonight. Because I want to help bridge that gap. I want to seize the chance for a healthy exchange of ideas. And I believe that there are enough people in the party and in the movement who genuinely want to do that as well.

But for those conversations to be constructive, they can’t be had with ulterior motives, or ill intent. Do not come to the discussion thinking that principles are on the table. Do we have a lot to learn? Certainly; absolutely. Party politics is intricate, and messy, and entirely illogical. But Principles are none of those things, and they are not things that we must “learn.” Principles just are; so if your intent is to tell us how we sometimes must compromise our principles for the sake of getting something done, save your breath. There’s been far too much of that to go around.

I submit – and I say this for everyone in the audience, even those ordinary Americans that may disagree with me – that for the sake of the country, the movement and the party need each other. The party needs the new energy, the passion, and the principles of the grassroots movement, and the movement needs, to be blunt, the access to power, favorable election laws, and money of the party. That’s ugly, but from where I stand it’s the truth. We must find a way to work together without sacrificing our souls.

And my message to the grassroots (this won’t take nearly as long):  it can be done. Too often we all paint the Republican party with broad brushstrokes, using paint diluted by compromise. I’m here to tell you that there are good, good people in this party. People that share your views, your anger, and your concern. People that I’m proud to know, and that I think you’d be proud to know too.

Time is of the essence. Even now, the democrats are working to ram through the cornerstone of socialism – universal healthcare – against the will of the people and with only a passing glance at congressional rules. After that it will be cap and trade – no matter how much it snows. After that it will be comprehensive immigration reform. After that it will be card check. The progressives know that a rare moment is upon them – for the first time in a generation, finally, their dark stars have aligned – and they are working tirelessly to slam shut the door of liberty forever.

We cannot allow that to happen. The stakes are too high.

I’ll end with a quote:

“In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. This is that moment and you are that generation.”

That was said by Judge Andrew Napolitano at last year’s Ohio State Sovereignty rally. But he was not the first to utter the beginning of that phrase. No, it was first uttered in 1962, by a democrat – by John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address. The stakes were as high then as they are now.

The only difference, is that this time, the enemy is from within.

It is not too late to summon the American spirit of the founders. It is not too late to meet our moment.  Let us do now what was done at the birth of our nation and pledge together our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor, so help us God.

Dave Yost

I’ve followed with interest and a little concern the developments in the grassroots movement over the past few days, and I wanted to take a moment to share my perspective on the circumstances surrounding Dave Yost’s decision to run for Auditor of State rather than Attorney General.

I want to preface this with one statement that I believe many of us can make:  I don’t have all the facts, and neither does anyone else, aside from the people directly involved. I think it’s important to be rather clear about that, because there have been a number of conclusions drawn, and I’m not sure that all of them are based in facts.

I first heard of Mary Taylor running as John Kasich’s running mate from one of the State Central committee people who represents me. I haven’t asked whether any of the information shared with me was on or off the record, so I will refrain from naming names. Besides, telling you it was State Central Committee rep narrows the field down significantly.

In general, there was dismay at the announcement, with a number of insiders concerned that the Republican party was losing its one state-wide elected official, especially with an announcement this late in the game. It opened up the very real possibility that the AOS spot would be lost to a democrat that already had a statewide campaign well under way.

A few days later, I heard on the radio that Dave Yost had announced his intention to switch races. This was surprising and disappointing. I speculated – did not know, just speculated – that Yost had chosen to switch because the “writing was on the wall” for the AG race and, rather than lose a quality conservative candidate, it would be wiser to run for the auditor’s seat.

I voiced this rationale to the State Central Committee person previously mentioned, who honestly couldn’t verify my assumption because they weren’t in the know. It was shared that Dave Yost called them seeking council, and it was a tough decision.

There have been a number of assertions made, that, if they were all true, truly would be a terrible signal that the Republican party still doesn’t get it. Among them are:

• Dave had been pressured into the move to make way for Mike DeWine, since he and Kevin DeWine were family.
• Mary Taylor was forced to run for Lieutenant Governor because she wasn’t getting any funds from the Ohio Republican Party.
• Mary Taylor and John Husted are political enemies within the ORP, thus the reason for not having funds to fund her campaign.
• Dave Yost is the hand-picked candidate of Kevin DeWine and John Husted.

Once I saw the anger on the message boards, I decided to see if I could find out the truth behind the changes. The truth in politics is an elusive thing, but I felt it was better to try, rather than accept the assertions made by others without researching them myself.

So, I e-mailed Dave Yost, and he e-mailed me back. I got his permission to share this with others, so I am doing so via my blog. Here’s what I got back:

Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

Mary Taylor surprised us all a couple of weeks ago when she announced that she would not run for re-election for Auditor of State, but would instead become John Kasich’s running mate.

That created a special challenge. The Auditor of State is one of three offices that controls how legislative district lines are drawn. Ceding that seat to the liberals is simply not an option. But with our popular incumbent switching offices, what was the GOP to do?

Ohio is a huge state – more than 11.6 million people spread out over 41,000 square miles. If you could meet 300 people a day, seven days a week, it would take more than a century to meet everyone. A statewide campaign is different than a city or congressional race, and simply cannot be ginned up in the matter of a few months.

I was approached by local and state leaders and asked to consider running for Auditor of State. I’ve been a county auditor, and understand and value the work. After much prayer, reflection and taking of counsel, I decided that I could best serve the conservative ideals I’ve fought for by defending the Auditor of State seat.

It was clear that no matter what my decision was, there would be people who would be angry with me. I chose what I thought to be the right thing to do, and did it. Every Ohioan is free to make up his or her own mind – that’s the right of every free American patriot. But the sole basis for my decision was what I thought was right.

A few points in response to the various rumors and arguments swirling around the internet:

Qualifications. I’m the only candidate who has actually done the work of an auditor, as an award-winning county auditor from 1999-2003. That’s why more than half of Ohio’s county auditors have endorsed me for this position.

It’s true that I’m a lawyer, not an accountant – I hire and supervise accountants. I’ve met a payroll, stood up to political opposition, fought for what is right – and prosecuted and convicted corrupt politicians who used your money illegally.

The DeWine Connection. Mary Taylor’s decision to run for lieutenant governor was hers alone. She was not “pressured” into it by anyone – and anyone who knows Mary would laugh at the idea that a party chairman or anyone else could force her to do anything she does not want to do.

I quite frankly do not care what Kevin DeWine thinks about me. He has been unhappy with me in the past, and will no doubt be unhappy with me in the future. This decision was about what is right for Ohio.

I understand the frustration with Mike DeWine’s voting record. The fact that Kevin DeWine is a second cousin to Mike DeWine is the most meaningless fact in this whole debate. How many of your second cousins do you know? How much of risk would you be willing to take to help one of them?

Switching races. My opponent was running for re-election to his House seat when Mary made her decision. He abandoned that election to seize an opportunity. His campaign is 10 days old as I write this. The sole difference between his decision to switch races and mine is that he self-promoted, and I was recruited.

Principles are things like constitutionally limited government, lower taxes and individual freedom. A job application is not a principle, no matter how you slice it.

My decision to run for Auditor of State was based on what was best for Ohio, not the hatred of another candidate. I’ve met many of the patriots in the 9-12 movement and the Tea Party, and feel certain that they will make their decision that way, too.

In response to this, I asked a follow-up question:

You indicate that you were recruited. The speculation as to who recruited you and why – aside from the reasons you imply above – runs along two lines:

1. You were recruited by the DeWine consortium because it opened the door for Mike DeWine to win the AG race.
2. You were recruited to switch races because internal polling indicated the writing was on the wall for your AG race – DeWine was going to win the primary anyway.

His reply:

The first call I received on this was from a county auditor in western Ohio the day after Mary made her announcement. Several more auditors called in the next few days, as did a number of county GOP chairmen.

Six days after Mary’s announcement, ORP Chairman Kevin DeWine called and asked me to consider running for AOS. I promised to consider it. During the next four days, I spoke with a couple of hundred people. Some were movement people who were opposed to the move. There were others in the movement who thought it was wise, for they understood the problems of another candidate starting a statewide race from ground zero and wanted to make sure we protected the apportionment board seat.

I also received calls from several prominent people in the business community, all urging me to do run for AOS.

I never spoke with Mike DeWine, or anyone associated with his campaign. But I don’t think the party was particularly worried about the AG primary — the apportionment board and taking control of the House are the priorities.

As to the polling… not true. The party did not run a poll in the AG race as far as I know. My internal poll showed me beating DeWine if I got my message out.

At the end of the day, conservative are better served winning the AOS seat than the AG seat. I will take the brickbats and do what I think is right. This time, every time.

Thanks for the opportunity to explain. If you disagree with my decision, you will at least be doing so on the merits.

Now, I don’t claim to know Dave Yost. My first encounter with him was when we happened to sit at the same table at last year’s Lincoln Day Dinner where, incidentally, he was running for Attorney General – all the way back then. He seemed like a good guy, but the dirty little secret is that almost all politicians seem nice. If they’re not good at being personable, well, then, they’re not going to get very far. So I’m not going to base my opinion of any politician on a chance encounter.

My next encounter was when he spoke at the MCFAN meeting last year. Again, nice guy, and I thought he made his case quite well. He was unambiguous, principled, and conservative. He also seemed very real, in his Hawaiian shirt. I walked away a big fan, especially when compared to the known quantity that is Mike DeWhine. I know that a number of other people in the audience did so  as well.

That’s one of the reasons why it’s puzzling to me to see such a visceral reaction directed toward Dave Yost. Take a moment and think it through – how is it that someone who seemed so principled to people just a few months ago has drawn such ire, just from this decision. I mean, I can mostly understand it if all of the assumptions in the bullet points above are actually true.

But what if they’re not?

What if all the speculation is just that, speculation, and not based on facts?

Now, I know that many of you are a big fan of Seth Morgan, Dave’s opponent. In and of itself, there’s nothing wrong with that, and you obviously don’t need me to tell you that. Everything I’ve read indicates that he’s a conservative. But think about this for a moment:  are you rooting for Seth Morgan because of Seth Morgan, or are you rooting for him because he’s not Dave Yost?

Put another way, are you rooting for him because of politics, or because of principles?

And, as a corollary to that, how much do you actually know about Seth Morgan? Sure, he’s a conservative, a state rep, and a CPA. But did you know that he ran for auditor of his county – and lost? Does the fact that Dave Yost has been backed by 44 of the 48 Republican county auditors in the state carry any weight with you? Surely not all can be Republican tools. Surely a couple, at least, can be conservatives.

I’m not asking you to not back Seth Morgan. I’m just asking you to consider that things may not always be as they seem.

A couple of passing observations before I dig into the meeting. First, it was an astute move by Renacci. It afforded him to have a cozy gathering, on his own turf, and have a forthright conversation without the usual guardedness that goes along with camcorders and microphones whirring in the background.

Second, it is a sign of the times – and of our growing visibility – that a candidate would have groups like ours to reach out to in the first place. With the exception of a couple perhaps, 15 months ago – prior to to the election – none of these groups existed. Times have changed, and though we can’t and shouldn’t take the credit alone for the recent Republican wins in New Jersey & Massachusetts, only the willingly blind deny that the new grassroots were part of those victories.

Now, on to the meeting.

Process

The first half of the meeting was really a conversation between he and I (I was the aggressive, angry looking bald guy for those that were there :)), and most of my questions had to do with the process that he went through that led to his backing by the National Republican Congressional Committee, Kevin DeWine, Timken, and the three county party chairs. He took the time to step through the process and timeline that led to his decision to run – who he reached out to and why.

Renacci is a realist. Very few run for office to come in second (though I’m sure Bob Barr would have viewed that as progress), so he had to learn, first, how the process worked. And the process works with money. Specifically, at least $2.5 million to win, and perhaps as much as $3.5M (two years ago, Boccieri spent $4M).

No candidate is going to raise that from local resources alone, so he went to where the money was at:  the NRCC. Now, they didn’t just hand over their support; I’m sure there was more work to it than I can convey here or that Renacci conveyed on Friday, but at the very least they conducted a background check on him and ran him through a series of questions to assess his viability. When I inquired as to the nature of the questions they asked, they focused more on “why do you think you’re the best candidate” and “why do you think you can win”  kinds of questions. If there were questions of principles and issues, he didn’t mention them.

When the NRCC was ready to throw him their support, he went an extra step and asked them conduct a more thorough background check (to that point they already had 240 pages on him), to which they complied. The upshot was that there were no showstoppers. Sure, every businessman is going to get sued if they achieve some level of success, and Renacci is no exception. But we’re not talking about a love child squirreled away in a dark corner of the globe or a failed Ponzi scheme.

The NRCC was neither the beginning nor the end of the process he undertook. He talked to Kevin DeWine, presumably because of his position in the Ohio Republican Party, and made clear that he felt that if the party continued on this way they’d never win another election. He talked to most major elected Republican officials in all four counties, either directly or indirectly. He had the NRCC conduct a poll of his name recognition among other things. He talked to the Timken Empire to gauge their support. And he participated in the selection process that I wrote about previously and will write about again soon.

The result of all of this work is that he gained the support of the NRCC, the Timken Empire, and three of the four county chairs. For us grassroots folks, those are all what we consider “bad signs.” We don’t like the NRCC, we’ve heard that Timken chose Schuring, and we don’t like the selection process that the county chairmen used. NRCC represents RINOs, Timken represents influence peddling, and the selection process represents the wrong way to do it. Collectively, it smacks of a concerted effort by all three groups to circumvent the primary, and we really don’t like that.

But you know what? If I had been in Renacci’s position – if I were looking to win an election, I would have done it the exact same way even though I hate RINOs, influence peddlers, and all the rest. But it’s the process. The process requires money. It is what it is.

I suppose at this point that some grassroots people reading this are shaking their heads in strenuous disagreement. I get that, but let me ask you some questions:  First, is the problem with Renacci, or with the process? Can you blame a person for learning to work with the system? I think we can all agree that the process as we understand it isn’t just flawed, it’s flat out broken. But frankly, that’s not something we’re going to get fixed this election cycle. Like everything else wrong with the republic, fixing it is going to take patience and perseverance.

Second, if this is what it takes to raise the money to win the race, did the other candidates have the savvy to go through the same process? If not, why not?

As far as process is concerned, I have no problem with Jim Renacci. I am impressed by his level of effort and thoroughness and did not conclude, based on Friday night and previous conversations, that he told half-truths or flat out lies about his relationships with the powers that be.

Principles

Most of the evening focused on the process, as you may have gathered. Principles were discussed, but mostly in a way that you had to derive them. Granted, some principles I already knew, such as his stance on abortion (conception through natural death) and the 2nd Amendment. He mentioned again that he signed the petition stating he’d work to repeal health care reform if it passed.  Finally,  he indicated that he most identifies with Mike Pence, and that ought to count for something.

But that leaves plenty of room for questions about immigration reform, card check, and other issues. Unfortunately, we didn’t touch on those issues as much as I’d've liked.

Now, I said before that Renacci is a realist. The same attribute that benefited Renacci in process is what worries me in principles. That is, it’s one thing to have principles, it’s another thing entirely to stick to them when in the midst of a legislative battle. The point that I made to Renacci a couple days later is that for too long we’ve seen Republicans sacrifice too much to progressives that are not as strong as they appear. How can we be certain that he, the pragmatist that he is, won’t do the same? It may be a question to which the only answer we can believe is “watch and see what I do,” but he made an effort to answer it nonetheless. The nutshell is, Jim Renacci doesn’t need the job, therefore he doesn’t feel compelled to do other’s bidding for the sake of securing their future support.

It’s a valid answer, but seeing is believing.

In Conclusion

In general, I think Renacci had a strong showing, and he tried to drive home the theme that the over-arching goal isn’t to win a primary, but to beat Boccieri. Point taken, and it was certainly a better showing than his appearance at the Akron/Summit breakfast meeting last Saturday. He was transparent, forthright in his answers, and personable. He made the effort, which is consistent with how he’s managed the process thus far.

I started this primary season supporting Matt Miller. As a result of Friday’s meeting, I am now undecided, and that surprises me. Both candidates have strengths and weaknesses. I need to know more about how Matt Miller intends to get the money to win, and I need to know more about Jim Renacci’s principles and how intends not to lose his soul in DC.

Not all are worth watching. This one is. Hope for the new year.

Now we must make sure that the promise is delivered upon. Remember three stats as we enter 2010:

1. Congress approval rating two weeks prior to the 2008 election, according to Real Clear Politics:  14%.
2. House of Representatives re-election rate two weeks later:  94%
3. Average House of Representatives re-election rate of last 5 cycles:  96%

They don’t care because they don’t think it matters. Prove them wrong.

I have no problem with this. Since it is tied to the actual cost of goods, the net effect should be, more or less, zero. But don’t let that stop a reporter from zeroing in on the pain and suffering it will surely inflict on those unfortunate enough to still be making minimum wage. A quote from the article:

“Yeah, it’s 3 cents an hour. But that 3 cents an hour adds up at the end of 12 months,”

Does it? Let’s see. Three cents an hour in a forty hour work week adds up, before tax, to $1.20, or about the cost of a Coke at Wendy’s. Over a year, it adds up to $62.40. That’s about the cost of a newly-released Xbox 360 game.

So, what does it add up to? Not a lot.

My point:  it takes about 20 seconds to open up Windows calculator and do the math required to put this in proper perspective. That’s 2o seconds that the AP, apparently, couldn’t spare.

Feel free to cast me as someone who hates the poor. If you can make that illogical leap, well, then quite frankly I don’t care what you think of me.

Stop me before I utter another inane cliche!

…Wow!

That was really, really bad!

Not all the computer animation in the world can make up for the fact that this was a not-subtle-at-all liberal propaganda film.

• Anti-capitalist? Check. Those evil corporate money-grubbers will stop at nothing in their lust. And, it’s handy to have a marine battalion in your back pocket.
• Race card? Check. Blue is the new (American Indian) red.
• Anti-American? Check. Everyone can identify with the “aliens” being analogous to the imperialist Americans currently occupying countries worldwide.
• Tree-huggers? Check. They don’t just hug trees, they worship at their feet. Literally.
• Military haters? Check. Never have marines been made to look so dumb – and unprincipled – for so long.

Now, it isn’t as if we weren’t prepared for it. We were. But I resented Hollywood for failing to produce an Epic Movie this year, so we went anyway, hoping that the message would be slightly more subtle. So, I share some of the blame.

To top it off, the script was terrible. I counted (and yes, it got so bad I started to count) no less then 40 verbal cliches, to go along with all of the visual and plot cliches that were already there. Let’s go girls. Shock and awe. Treehuggers. You’re not in Kansas anymore. Fight terrorism with terrorism. I want to be home for dinner.

Good God make it stop. And while we’re talking about things that must stop, how about those outfits on the natives! If the natives were white instead of blue, this would have been rated NC-17. Skin, skin everywhere.

Two and a half hours trapped in the middle of this propaganda film seemed like days. Ironically, there were two groups that couldn’t possibly be pleased with the effort:  PETA and the peace-loving hippies. How instructive that a film made by liberals for liberals about liberal struggles ends with a victory achieved not through diplomacy, but a violent battle and animals dropping left and right.

Avatar. We went so you don’t have to.

And I have a problem with that.

So the questions aren’t about Jim Renacci. They are about the process used that resulted in Renacci transforming from “Republican hopeful” to “Republican frontrunner.” That’s what I’m interested in. Process is paramount.

• What was the process? All indications are that the four GOP party chairs in the four counties that represent the 16th District asked each prospect to undergo a vetting process. Now, a vetting process is normal and necessary. But were those candidates asked to participate in the process with the understanding that they would bow out if the four county chairs did not “select” them?
• What was the criteria used in the selection process? What made Renacci the last man standing? Was it Principles? Money? Friends? Promises?
• What’s the difference been “select” and “endorse?” As I understand it, party chairs are prohibited from endorsing candidates prior to the primary. But isn’t a selection an endorsement? Isn’t it a distinction without a difference?
• Why aren’t party chairs allowed to endorse anyone? What is the law trying to prevent? Is one of the goals to prevent signaling to donors who to send their money to?
• When was the selection made?
• Is there a cause and effect relationship between the announced selection and the timing, number and size of contributions to the person selected?
• Did the contributors who contributed after the selection process was complete deliberately wait for the selection? Were they asked to? Is that right? If so, does that mean that the “selection not endorsement” effectively skirted the law?
• Does a primary matter? Did the “selection not endorsement” short circuit the primary process?
• What other questions should be asked?

Why do I care? Because the appearance is thus: The Renacci Selection Process was meant to avoid a primary and, if one could not be avoided, render it meaningless by making the outcome a forgone conclusion. The party rank-and-file need not render an opinion; one has been rendered on their behalf.

Now, I know that there are valid arguments to be made about avoiding the primary process – something along the lines of it gives fodder to the democrat opponent. I get that. I don’t agree with it, but I get it. It’s time we as conservatives and Republicans realized that being so caught up in how your opponent is going to portray you is a recipe for failure. The opponent is always going to do that, no matter how much you try to appease them (re:  McCain, 2008).

Now maybe I’m new here, but it seems to me that, especially in the current political climate, it is both unfair (to the other viable candidates and the party faithful) and unwise (considering the current weakness of the Republican brand), to not allow the primary process to take its course.

Rather than act as official party spokesmen for a “selected” candidate, the party chairs ought to instead make the integrity of the primary process their paramount responsibility.

Is it too late for that? Is it too much to ask for a political party, even at the most local level, to represent the unmanipulated will of its members?

We shall see. There are questions that need answers.

Why won't these people take a hint?

Glad to have you home, Congress! As you can see, we haven’t gone anywhere. We’re still here. We’re still waiting. We’re still angry as hell.