The glory days of Smokey Yunick and Fireball Roberts charging around the stock car tracks of the south and Farmer Arnie Beswick tearing up the drag strips through out the country are long gone... as are the Firebirds Burt Reynolds thrilled us with on the big screen. Government Motors snuffed out the life of this once proud automaker on April 27, 2009. Once number three in sales, Pontiac had slipped down near the bottom in recent years, a victim of union excesses, inept corporate management, insurance standards and government regulation.

Pontiac's story is one of the entire American auto industry. Union contracts that were almost reasonably workable when the industry was living high on the hog and making so much money they built amazing buildings as monuments to themselves, seem oddly out of place when the profitable sales have been lost to foreign competitors. The adversarial relationship that seemed appropriate when the big three had the US market all to themselves remains, to the detriment of all concerned.

Times change, so do market conditions. The US automakers were up against foreign competition where labor and management understood they needed to work together to produce a product that would penetrate the US market. Somehow the this spirit of cooperation never caught on in the US, even at Pontiac where once there existed a pride in achievement. The unions kept asking for more and more and the greed and lack of resolve on the part of the companies made avoiding the lost production of a strike outweigh the long term destruction of overpriced contracts.

Many other factors played into the downfall of the auto industry, not the least were government regulations in the name of safety, fuel efficiency and others, just because they could. Some of us remember the foolish “double nickel” speed limits imposed by our “benefactors” in Washington until sanity returned. What we saw in this case and around the industry were companies that paid attention to their operations, but not the market or environment they lived in.

In the early '60s I was considering attending General Motors Institute... a fine engineering school with the obvious emphasis on the automobile industry. While checking into this I had the opportunity to visit the main offices of the Pontiac Division. The place was adorned with all sorts of signs touting the number three in sales and an institutional pride rarely seen in the business world. The company took a higher price product and went head to head with lower priced Ford and Chevy. These were the victorious days of Roberts and Beswick. Management at that time had taken a dull, stodgy, but reliable product and morphed it into one of the most desired cars of the time.

They worked on the concept that you could sell a young man's car to an old man, but you couldn't sell an old man's car to a young man... and it worked. They turned out some of the baddest street machines for their time and backed it up with winning efforts in NASCAR, NHRA, USAC and who knows how many other forms of racing. For myself, I had a Tri-Power '60 Ventura and, later, a '64 GTO. Both were fun to drive and just a little nicer than their lower priced Chevrolet cousins.

This was not to last, however, as fuel shortages, insurance rates and government regulations put and end to the no holds barred competition between the auto companies... and we started the long, downward spiral to the indistinguishable econobox lumps so popular today.

The point is that, for the most part, the excitement of the “new car” has been beaten our of our society. Few really are exciting. They have become so expensive that without a rich daddy, young people can't afford anything remotely interesting. Foreign manufacturers, reading the market better than their American counterparts, brought annoying little cars the kids call “tuners” into this environment. Once again, the big three were outmaneuvered. Parking lots that once were filled with Chevys, Fords and Pontiacs are now homes to Hondas, Mazdas and Hyundais. As Chester A. Riley used to say, “What a revoltin' development this is!”

So one more American icon is passing from the scene. It's a sad day. However to the progressive ideologues inside the beltway this is a good thing. The old must be destroyed to make room for the new, the centrally planned Government Motors car that looks like all the others and is certainly less than what are used to, but more then they believe we deserve. For those familiar with the development of the first Volkswagens it is, to quote a great American philosopher, “deja vu all over again.”

In honor of the occasion, perhaps we should dig out a copy of “Little GTO” by Ronnie and the Daytonas - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44kg0IENTPU – and play it a few times.

It's easy to think about Captain Robert Phillips of the Maersk Alabama as a hero... and he is. Despite his denials, he fits our normal perception of heroic behavior. A contestant in a beauty pageant is usually not in a position to do much more than look pretty and give verbal encouragement to world peace. Carrie Prejean's situation was different. Everyone picked her to be the next Miss USA – she led in all the components. Her big opportunity came... answer the question properly and she would be home free.

Her question came from a judge whose agenda outweighed a desire to pick the best Miss USA... although, in his puny but prejudiced mind, Perez Hilton thought he was helping to pick the best Miss USA... one who would not be so stupid as to actually believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. To this openly homosexual gossip hound, having a different opinion made this woman, who was qualified in every other respect, completely unsuitable to hold the title. Whatever made the pageant organizers think this person of questionable lifestyle and non-productive profession could “judge” a good woman is totally beyond me.

To Carrie, the question from a judge who publicly advocates a different set of values than the ones she grew up with, as did most of us, stood between her and the goal she worked so hard to gain. She could have rolled over and given the politically correct answer... and most likely won the contest. Instead, she gave an answer straight from her heart. Her ingrained beliefs came out just as ours should when challenged, publicly or privately.

This time it cost her. This should be no surprise as nowhere is it written that standing by Christian values would not carry a price. In view of what it cost Jesus, it should be considered normal that we would have obstacles and challenges. As Ms. Prejean commented later “God was testing my faith.” She passed with flying colors as she came up against a secular society populated by those with an ever increasing hostility to traditional values and the one behind them.

As expected, Hilton threw a hissy fit on his blog. He wanted a politically correct answer. Even though she was from the left coast, Miss California had no time for such nonsense. He asked a question, fishing for a PC answer that would further his agenda. She gave a straight (pun intended) answer and left poor Perez squealing like a stuck pig. She had her victory and he got his revenge when the scores were tallied. But, that's OK. I'm sure there are things coming her way far beyond the lost Miss USA title... they may or may not be as public, but whenever we give up something of value in the name of righteousness, there is something of greater value awaiting us.

People inside the beltway and capitols throughout our land, and the world, will most likely look at this and tell us this is what happens when you stand for principles. Only, like the late Paul Harvey, we need to wait for the “rest of the story”. Perhaps she feels like Joseph when he was sold into Egypt... but that wasn't the end for him either.

It's unfortunate that we have such short time horizons when we view the impact of these actions. We miss out on much of the good and fail to appreciate much of reward for our sacrifices. Often politicians talk of plans that reach ten or fifteen years into the future when the only time frame they really care about is up to the next election.

They, and we, need to set aside immediate consequences and do the right thing... and not be surprised if there is a price to be paid. Stephen did the right thing and he was pelted with stones until he died. John the Baptist did the right thing and his head was presented to the queen on a platter. While we'd like to think these things won't happen to us, nothing should be too surprising in view of the growing hostility in some quarters to Christians and the teachings of the Bible. I've looked, but can't find anywhere where we are given a pass on doing the right thing just because it isn't easy.

Adolf Hitler's Minister of Propaganda is quoted as saying, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

This man, Joseph Goebbels, understood the value of guiding public opinion in the direction the government desires as being critical to bringing about changes in a society. The current administration appears to have learned this lesson extremely well. This has come to light with several recent issues where there is an obvious disconnect between the story coming from our government and the reality staring us in the face.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently attacked the tea parties held at hundreds of locations throughout our land as a scheme cooked up by higher GOP operatives to make the Obama administration look bad. First of all, the Republican Party does not have to do anything to make the current administration look bad... it would be redundant. The reality is that each tea party was organized by local people who wanted to be heard by the people who are supposed to represent them. There was just as much animosity toward the Republican Party as the Democratic Party. It is believed that both have let the citizens down.

If there was any major financial backing, it was so secret that it didn't make its' way down to the local level as local organizers were left on their own to figure out how to make the event work. Whatever I would think of the lady, I am certain she is smart enough to know this... which leads us to the other conclusion, namely that she is purposely trying to mislead the people, along with her willing cohorts in the mainstream media as they repeat her message ad nauseum.

We have all heard the oft quoted statistic that 90% of the firearms used by Mexican drug cartels come from the United States. This is a standard talking point of administration officials, repeated endlessly to the press to anyone who will listen. It has taken on air of truth so as to become conventional wisdom among the unquestioning media and kool aid drinking public.

The fact is that the 90% number is correct, but not of the entire lot of confiscated weapons. Of the twenty some thousand guns recently picked up by Mexican authorities, many have no serial numbers or manufacturer markings, as do all legal weapons manufactured or imported in into the US. Of this total, about eleven thousand do have these markings and could potentially come from US sources. Even of these, not all are traced to their origin. About 6000 are actually run through the system and here is where the 90% number comes in. However 90% of 6000 is not the same as 90% of all the weapons... but it sounds good, fits the prejudices of the administration and can be used to support further controls on firearms.

Mark Twain's comment "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." could also be applied to the broadcast media as well... particularly in this case. One could write a book about all the misinformation coming out of Washington, and the conclusion would be the same. Are these people really that far out touch with reality? Or are they purposely and maliciously leading us down the path to destruction?

Spreading the big lie is only half of the Goebbels formula. The other half is discrediting the truth... and this we saw as the administration pretended to ignore the tea parties as if they had no consequence and the lap dog drive by media joined in by portraying this grassroots movement as a group of misinformed, psychopated kooks. It was, and is, necessary for the public to be shielded from the truth and genuine anger expressed expressed at these public protests.

The dissent that was so honorable when the hated George Bush was in office has suddenly become subversive and anti-American. The left is depending on the short memories and shallow analysis of our immediate gratification oriented culture. They counter any and all criticism of the direction they are taking the country by labeling sincere questioning as racially motivated... which is a clever, though transparent scam to keep from responding with non-existent evidence. When they don't accuse the critic of hostility to the skin color of the president, they try to tell us we are overreacting, misunderstanding or just plain closed minded. There are no honest responses to most of our objections because such responses just do not exist in the world of reality. It's as if Al Capone knew what was coming when he told us, “They (elites) are quite good at hypocrisy and blissfully shameless about it, too. Practice makes perfect, after all…” But then human nature hasn't changed all that much over the years.

So the only tactic is to keep repeating the lie, whether it is about the economy, health care, global warming or any issue du jur, followed by the politics of personal destruction practiced so effectively by the Clintons. Can any one say Sarah Palin?

Barack Hussein Obama is a skilled practitioner of the teachings of Saul Alinsky, but the roots of these tactics and strategies go back even further, to someone even more evil... one of the architects of the Germany's Third Reich. Ron Paul summed our plight up well when he commented, "Truth is treason in the empire of lies."

On the third of August, 1492 Christopher Columbus left Spain leading an expedition consisting of three ships of brave adventurers. He had an idea where he was going, but he couldn't be certain. His crew knew even less. But they pressed on. On October 11, while off the southeastern coast of North America, he spotted the Caribbean islands. While not the land they were looking for, their mission was a success.

After centuries of informal and state celebrations, Columbus Day became a federal holiday in 1970. It was a day to celebrate country, history and the spirit of adventure. Italian-Americans rejoiced in their heritage. Recently the holiday has fallen into disfavor among the academic elites and politically correct. Brown University has become the latest institution of supposedly higher learning to banish this American tradition to the dust bin of history.

At the request of the student body, the faculty voted to replace the Columbus Day recognition with a Fall Weekend celebration. One has to wonder where these students got the information on which they based their righteous indignation. Some would see the possibility of manipulation of these students trying to find their way on their own for the first time in their lives.

The historical revisionists have now chosen to emphasize some of the things that may have gone on between Columbus and the native Americans over the magnitude of his accomplishment. One web site explains this thinking by telling us it “rejects the celebration of Christopher Columbus and his legacy of domination, oppression, and colonialism. We also reject historical misconceptions regarding Columbus and his 'discovery' of the Americas.” He is called a savage and castigated as a slave trader.

What is interesting is that many of the most vocal opponents of Columbus and his discovery of the new world have long ago expressed deep admiration for revolutionary butcher Che Guevara. The same people who are loudly critical of Columbus alleged brutality admire the very same qualities in the communist guerrilla. Guevara's victims are well documented, and I've never met one of his fans that will argue that he was not a ruthless killer.

It looks like it's not the action these people really object to. Could it be that one resulted in the birth of the greatest free nation on earth, based on Christian values and the other was trying to tear down certain levels of freedom and substitute the iron hand of communism? How revealing is this?

Nothing takes place in a vacuum. Are the students (and faculty) rejecting Columbus because of his supposed deeds, or because of what he represents: the spread of western civilization – the benefits of which they all enjoy? Do these same people so admire Che because he lived the life of a terrorist, killing innocent people, or because he was trying to tear down western civilization? The next time you see a kid with his cool Che Guevara t-shirt, you may want to ask him that.

Christopher Columbus wasn't perfect, but he was a man who had the courage to go where no European had gone before. He was the James Kirk of his day. He was one of leaders in the creation of a civilization that was to be the lighthouse to world. Those who would argue with this must think that the idyllic Middle Ages were the peak of man's existence with their bleaker living conditions and significantly shorter life spans. Surely they could not be looking at communist regimes that killed millions of people around the world to maintain their dictatorial power, only to ultimately fail anyway, as the model we should be working toward, along with the likes of Guevara. Unfortunately many of them do!

A few days ago a Vietnamese born American methodically killed more than a dozen people, then himself. What would make this man act on impulses many have, but never follow? The fact that he killed himself let's us know he had nothing in his life to keep him going. That he killed all the innocent people showed the rage and hatred in his heart. What brings a person to the point where they think they have nothing to live for and want to inflict as much pain as possible on the way out? The man had lost all hope of better days.

While campaigning, Barack H. Obama talked incessantly and ambiguously, about hope and the changes he wanted that would bring this hope to the masses. Jiverly Voong did not participate in the hope many experienced as the smooth talking new president moved into the White House. Apparently he did not expect to either. He lost his job at IBM, he couldn't speak the language well. What was he to do... his life was over, he thought.

The fact is the President is not to blame. It is true that he sold, and many people bought, the idea that hope could come from a man with more promises than Hershey has kisses. These people bought into the idea that their lives would be made complete by a beneficent government under the command of their would-be Messiah. Jiverly Voong did not share this hope. The fact is, had he shared it this hope, and this is all he had, sooner or later he would have come face to face with the same disappointment, frustration and depression that brought him to the end of his life. Was it his inability to fit into the government program designed to at least make him feel like he was succeeding? Or was it that that the Big Brother federal government operations were incapable of meeting this man's needs.

While attempting to induce citizens as well as aliens, legal and otherwise, to place their confidence in our government's good will and ability to see us through our current malaise, this government is also working to limit the effectiveness of faith based organizations through the tax code and various, less visible, regulations. It appears that throughout this administration, engineering a shift in mindset and loyalties is more important than solving problems. The President is not alone in this effort. This has been the aim of many in his party for years... only now they have the votes to push it through, aided and abetted by some members of the other party who are embarrassed by the social conservative values and wish they would go away.

This presents a truly dangerous situation for our country as they are attempting to relegate the only ones who can help people find real hope to an hour time slot on Sunday mornings. If Mr. Voong had found this hope, would he have slaughtered thirteen innocent people as they were working toward better days of their own through US citizenship? Would he have inflicted, what is possibly the greatest evil the town of Binghamton, NY has ever seen? Of course not, as he would have seen the better days ahead for himself in this life and the next.

If someone could have gotten through to him with the message contained in 1 Timothy 4:10, “...we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe” surely his life and the lives of thirteen other people... along with their families, would have been different. This is the hope our government is looking to take from people and in it's place, give them faith in a fallible state run by imperfect, and often incompetent, men and women.

We too are imperfect and sometimes not up to the task of pointing the people to the one who has neither of these shortcomings. We are not the hope, we are just trying to share this hope with others who need it. While we work with whatever circumstances we have, it is our duty to kick open closing doors so as to prevent as many of the Jiverly Voongs of this world from destroying themselves and others created for a full life on this earth. And while doing this, still sharing the hope that no government can provide.

Last summer, Republicans at their state convention elected Jeff Frederick, an avowed conservative, as Chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia with about 60% of the vote. He defeated the incumbent, a former Lt Governor with roots grown deep in the ranks of old time party insiders. The man was, in fact, Jenna Bush's father-in-law. Most at the convention we very pleased with the results as Mr. Frederick ran on a platform of changing the top down operation of the party apparatus to a grassroots approach. Others, friends and allies of the of the ousted leader were determined the results would not stand.

Immediately, those who raised money for the party disappeared. The new chairman was then criticized for the lack of financial success. Everything he did came under the closest of scrutiny and anything that looked like a misstep was dutifully reported to other Republicans and the press. As a young man with great vision for what the party could be, he made a few mistakes and stepped on a few toes along the way. There were rumors of a coup attempt at the December Advance – a weekend educational and celebratory gathering at the Homestead. This did not come to pass and many of the grassroots activists appreciated their addition to the program.

The Republican Party of Virginia is actually run by a group called the State Central Committee. This is the group that took no action when a state senator chose to run as an independent against the party's gubernatorial candidate... he even kept his committee chairmanship. This is also the same group that took no action when another state senator cowed other members of the finance committee into pushing through a massive tax increase proposed by a Democratic governor over the objections of the rest the party's general assembly delegation. This is also the same group that took no action when a US Senator found someone to run against Ollie North as an independent because he did not like the choice of the convention delegates. This is also the group that, along with behind the scenes movers, has over recent years, anointed candidates for statewide offices that were good people, but consistently finished second.

Can any one say, “selective indignation”? To be fair, this inaction may be traced back to the philosophical differences between the old line leadership that saw the party as a vehicle to support elected officials and Jeff Frederick who thought they should be held accountable to the citizens.

Apparently several months into the new year, the critical number of committee members was either convinced, coerced or otherwise induced to sign on to the removal of the young chairman. While the members were forbidden to discuss the charges, all sorts of allegations were leaked to the press about the supposed reprobate leader. After a month of trial by the press, the Saturday, April 4th SCC meeting was called to order.

When it finally came time to analyze the charges and Frederick's defense, those who had publicly trashed and destroyed the reputation of this House of Delegates member, called for an executive session and demanded all but members and the favored few leave the room. This seemed rather odd after the earlier public nature of their criticism. It is hard to believe it was to spare their victims feelings, but more likely, it appeared to cover the weakness of their charges... and deny his supporters a public record of the votes. Then again, it could be to cover the fact that it was those with an ax to grind were the one testifying against him.

Their determination to give him a fair trial before hanging him was fulfilled. The vote was taken and he was removed from office. Following which, the magnanimous victors called for the disenfranchised rank and file to help in putting this self generated crisis behind them and pull together for the common good.

Before we, of the unwashed masses, were removed from the premises, it was interesting to observe that most of those attempting to keep the chairman in his post were older members looking out for the party and commonwealth. Not all were tightly connected to the power structure. None appeared to be politically ambitions. Of those looking for Jeff Frederick's head on a platter were many young, supposedly conservative, but ambitious political types not wanting to rock their boat, committee members with deep ties to party insiders and those just flattered to be considered part of the 'in' crowd.

It is actions like this, unless justified by gross and public misdeeds, that make average citizens so wary of the political class. It reinforces their image of politicians as unworthy of support or respect. Damage was inflicted on the Republican Party of Virginia reminiscent of the Pogo cartoon that declared, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

If the party is not successful in electing a governor in November, it will be interesting to see where the blame will be laid this time. Is it possible that those who drove this unnecessary wedge between party members will look in the mirror when assessing the blame. Or perhaps they will blame the supporters of the man so shamefully treated today. It is sad that a group so undeserving as the Democrats will benefit from party leadership so determined to retain power that they are apparently content to have a firm grip on a minority party.

On the evening of December 16, 1773 about 200 men disguised as Indians descended, whooping and hollering, on three ships anchored in Boston harbor. They threw the cargo of tea into the water, denying themselves and their neighbors one of the staples of colonial life. They understood the risk involved in their protest as it was a scant three years earlier that the Boston Massacre took the lives of five of their friends and neighbors. More important than the destruction of the ship's cargo was the refusal to pay the taxes imposed by the British Parliament a world away in London.

The Stamp Act (1765) and the Townsend Acts (1767) were attempts by the British Crown to recoup the costs of the French and Indian War. Because the colonists raised their voices in protest, most of the taxes imposed were repealed. However, the tax on tea remained as Parliament desired to drive home the point that it, indeed, had the authority to tax the colonies. The colonists, with no voice in Parliament had other ideas. In spite of the risk involved in going against the most powerful empire on earth at the time, these colonists understood the larger problem of refusing to stand up to the Crown's claim on them. They stood firm on principle and that is why we read about them today.

This year, on April 15... Tax Day... all around the country, modern day patriots will be gathering in parks and public squares around the country to protest irresponsible borrowing and profligate spending of the Federal Government along with the unheard of and unwarranted expansion of federal control on our lives. They are gathering because, to them, it is not right that our children and grandchildren be saddled with the debt of our generations errors in judgment.

Tax day Tea Parties are springing up all around the country. There is probably one near you. Check out http://taxdayteaparty.com/ to find he one closest to you. If you care about the world you leave for your kids and grandkids, make every effort to be there. Sure it may be inconvenient to add one more thing to your schedule. It was inconvenient to board the ships that night to haul up the cargo and dump it overboard. It was inconvenient for Nathan Hale to have the British hangman place the noose around his neck. Convenience has nothing to do with right and wrong. Be at one if it is at all possible.

We can't afford to get it wrong this time. Besides, you'll have a great time hanging out with others who share your concerns. You'll make new friends and put our would-be masters in Washington on notice that we love our freedom and have no intention of giving it up.

You will also let the inside the beltway boys know that we don't like the direction they are taking the country and we will not put up with it any longer. In the early morning hours of April 19, 1775 thirty-eight men gathered on Lexington Green and fired the “shot heard round the world”. This is your opportunity to gather on April 15 of this year and join in the protest that will also be “heard round the world”.

Newspapers, along with TV anchors and infobabes love to tell stories of dissension within the ranks of the Republican Party. They enjoy pouring fuel on any kind of sparks, trying to fan them into a blaze that negates the effectiveness of any non-Democrat politician. The problem is that there is some basis for the stories about factions within the Grand Old Party.

To those outside, the differences may appear to be simple personality conflicts or random loyalty fights. The fact is it goes much deeper than that. There are really two distinct groups within the party. When things are going well, it's hard to tell one from the other. However the recent electoral failures have deepened these differences and peeled back the veneer of smiling faces.

The first type is the structural Republican. With these, it is a tradition and they may have been in the party all their lives. They feel a kind of proprietary interest in it. They would vote for anyone as long as they have an R by their name on the ballot and will continue to support them no matter how far they stray from party orthodoxy. Because of their party orientation, these are usually the people who show up at party functions and usually run for party offices.

These are also the people usually anointed to run for elected office. Strong, conservative candidates can break through, but rarely without a knock down, drag out fight. A few years ago Virginia presented a dilemma to the structural Republicans. Oliver North was nominated to run for a senate seat. He was the man and many party insiders gritted their teeth and said they would support him. However Senator John Warner would have nothing of this hero who actually believed in something beyond himself. Warner found someone to run as an independent against Ollie and siphoned off enough votes to insure his defeat. While the grassroots Republicans who secured the North nomination cried “foul”, the party leaders said nothing and did nothing about it. Some even joined the “moderate” Senator in support of the interloper. They believed their role was subordinate to the elected official rather than subordinate to the people!

In spite of this behavioral dissonance, success of the party is their primary interest, often purity on policy questions will be sacrificed for expediency. This is justified by considering ten or twenty percent disagreement still means eighty or ninety percent agreement. In many ways there is virtue to this thinking as this is how coalitions are built, but at times it ignores critical shortcomings on core issues.

The second type is the issue Republican. For them, their issue is of primary importance and the Republican Party is simply the best vehicle for promoting it. These issues can be second amendment rights, ending abortion or low taxes and small government. This last group seems to get the kindest reception from the structural Republicans, but still none are completely trusted by structural Republicans as support may and has been withheld for failures to live up to promises on the part of elected officials and candidates.

This group tends to be fragmented and parochial in its dedication to a particular issue. The people don't mix well, even with other issue oriented types in spite of the fact that they really are in general agreement. That is, most gun rights people are pro-life, and most pro-lifers are sympathetic to gun owners concerns, but the difference in emphasis keeps them apart. The low taxers tend to be suspicious of anyone concerned with social issues... even though the gun people and anti-abortion activists almost invariably support smaller, less expensive and intrusive government.

Many of the the structural Republicans don't trust the issue Republicans because they believe in something beyond deal making and going along to get along. They have goals that reach beyond getting elected or re-elected. Sometimes they may even take actions that hurt their chances if they must to do the right thing. But then, the issue types have learned not to trust the structural Republicans because of the many broken promises that result in their devalued issues being thrown under the bus on some compromise.

During the past administration, we saw many Republicans go to Washington after campaigning on low tax and smaller government platforms, only to have their arms twisted into, or perhaps catching beltway fever and willingly, going along with the inflated budgets and intrusive schemes coming from a Republican administration. It's no wonder that their rhetoric rings hollow in the ears of an angry and frustrated electorate. They have compromised and moderated themselves and their party into minority status... and many of them right out of office.

It may take a whole new crop of candidates to take back the party and the congress, much like Newt Gingrich did when he led in forming the Contract with America. It may take a group of men and women honestly willing to pledge their “fortunes and sacred honor” to get the job done. Even though elected officials are often called “The Honorable”, this type of personal honor is a rarity in today's government. What kind of people have this sense of focus and personal honor? The kind of people who believe in something and have a sense of right and wrong. The kind that will sacrifice personal ambition for the good of the country.

The structural Republicans will say “Wait a minute, we have these qualities.” The compromised values and abandoned principles tell another story. Back in the early days of GOPAC, one of the primary ideas they tried to get across to those looking at elected office was that they should run because they wanted to DO something, not because they wanted to BE something.

Sure, some compromise is inevitable, but it should not become a way of life, and some things are just non-negotiable. If being a Republican is to mean something, it is essential that the people running under that banner have some sort of agreement on where to stand. As Amos 3:3 asks, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

Neither group can win consistently by itself. A mutual respect and appreciation for the others contribution is needed. A willingness to stand up for another persons interest is essential to forming a winning team. Structural types need to stand up for gun rights, unborn children and limited government rather than dismissing the issues as unimportant. They need to get out of the way when an issue oriented candidate excites the base and the public. Single issue voters need to begin looking at the bigger picture, become more involved in party processes and realize that by helping people with the other primary concerns, theirs too shall be addressed.

The Democratic Party sold it's soul to follow a smooth talking shyster who waived before them an ambiguous, self-defined regimen of hope and change... and we are all paying for it... and will be paying for it as far as the eye can see. They have set aside principles to follow a man. We are a country of laws, not men. The Republican Party needs to, once again, be a party of principles, not men. The fate of the party and the country hangs on it.

When thinking about running for office, many men and women who would make fine candidates back away from the prospect because they are not sure how to get their message across. They know what they believe and what they would like to accomplish, but somehow, the idea of facing the public and the press scares the thought right out of their heads. This is both unfortunate and unnecessary. Unfortunate because we cannot abandon the political playing field to the glib, slick lipped types who the provide the form, if not the substance needed for the job. It's also unnecessary, as adequate preparation will not only yield the ability to communicate, but give you the confidence to go out and actually do it.

Your Message

Before you begin your campaign, consider what it is that makes you want to run for office and what you would like to accomplish when elected. It should be from one to three main points. You can go into more detail during in depth interviews or op-ed pieces, but more than that will muddy the waters for the voters. Your campaign will be built around this message. Your goal is that when people hear your name, your message will immediately come to mind.

We can look at two Virginia Governors to see prime examples of this. When George Allen ran, everyone who was paying attention knew he wanted to abolish the parole system. Likewise when Jim Gilmore ran, abolishing the car tax was the goal both he and the public wanted. Since then others have run with less focused campaigns... and came in second. Each of these men had positions on a multitude of other issues that came out during the course of the campaign but the main point was indelibly attached to their names.

Finally, try to phrase your message in ways that the public can understand will benefit them. For instance, your opponent wants to use municipal funds to erect a statue to former Mayor Algonguin J. Calhoun. The man was popular with the community, but you know was a reprobate and scoundrel (imagine a politician with those characteristics... just don't be one), your opposition could be based on a respect of the taxpayers money and a list of unmet needs in the community that make your opponent appear insensitive to his potential constituents.

Your Stump Speech

Once you identify yourself as a candidate for office, you will be asked to address various groups like Rotary Clubs, PTAs, Jaycees, women's clubs and the like. The first thing you need to understand is that you do not have to write a new speech for each group. In fact, you should not write a different speech for each group. You should, of course, adjust the talk to each group. You may want to swap out some of your jokes for ones that have particular meaning to your audience, and modify your examples to something they may understand... but your main outline should be remain consistent.

The reason for this ties back to your message. What is it you want the public to associate with your candidacy. All this assumes you do want to be a straight shooter and not give different pictures of yourself depending on the group you are talking to. Beyond this, keeping to the same stump speech means you will be certain not to give out conflicting messages that will come back to bite you somewhere down the road.

Because of the variety of groups, venues and program formats, you should have fifteen and thirty minute versions of your talk. From there, you can adjust to most any situation.

What should be included in your speech? Take your message point(s) and flesh them out with illustrations. Back up your views... tell how you came to your position and why your ideas are better than your opponents. It's OK to have a little fun with your opponents position if you can do it with genuine humor and without hostility.

Block Quotes

Write down a list of anything you could possibly be asked, off the wall or not. Now get a stack of index cards... yes, index cards... you can refer to them anywhere and they don't run out of battery with constant use like your Blackberry. Write each question on a card, along with a brief paragraph explaining your position.

These will be sound bites heard on the evening news. You will live with these cards day and night. They are not for reference during interviews or news conferences. The idea is to review them over and over until you know them cold and the answer comes immediately to mind without hesitation. Sometimes when giving answers, it may be best to pause slightly like you are giving the matter some thought... but there is no substitute for the confidence you gain by knowing exactly what you are going to say. The deer in the headlights look isn't beneficial to a political career. Try to conclude each answer by tying it back to your message.

Flexibility

With either of these processes, it's important to maintain flexibility based on current events and developing situations. Life is a fluid and so is politics. As conditions change, do not be afraid to adapt to them in your speech and block quotes. It helps show that you are aware and in touch with your surroundings and trustworthy to take actions based on a changing environment.

What You Don't Say

Lastly, saying all the right things may be to no avail if along with that you include something that probably should not be said. During the previous election cycle, Rev. Jesse Jackson made a remark about wanting to remove some body parts of the current president. He was humiliated, his reputation was damaged... all unnecessarily. A slip of the lip also contributed to the end of Sen. George Allen's brilliant political career.

Never, and I say NEVER assume a conversation anywhere near a public venue is private. It doesn't hurt to be a bit paranoid about who may be listening in. It never hurts to really be the squeaky clean candidate you want the public to see you as. If you are the real deal, you won't have to apologize. Do your best to be the real deal, we have enough of the others already.

As idealistically as we would like to look at public service, politics and political campaigns run on money. How much you need depends on the level of office you seek, the finances of your competition and the nature of your local economy and broadcast market. Whatever your aspiration, it has been said correctly, money is the mothers' milk of politics. The purpose of this piece is not to consider the propriety of this situation, but to help you work within the real world constraints of the system.

Unless you are independently wealthy or running unopposed, don't even think of attempting to self finance your campaign. Even in these cases, it cannot be viewed as the optimum financial plan. When you raise money from supporters you are not going to them, hat in hand, asking them to do something nice for you and give you money. Instead, you are giving them the opportunity to make their community and possibly their world a better place to live and influence the governmental philosophy by which policy decisions are made. You are not selling influence, but you are looking for like minded people who would like to see your policies implemented.

The implication here is that you have thought through your reasons for seeking the office before making your first call. Not only do you know why your are running, but have put it together into in a coherent and understandable presentation. Nothing turns off a potential donor quicker than a candidate who does not know what he is doing. Putting your plan on a single sheet of paper helps you focus on the main points and cull out the extraneous material.

The next thing you will need is a budget. If you are new to the political scene, getting some help here is essential as quantities and prices of materials almost invariable provide a shock treatment to the neophyte. A reasonable and responsible budget is an essential tool for gaining support from those who have the money and understand its use as a tool in accomplishing goals, and it shows that you understand the value of their contribution.

When you first begin your campaign, plan on spending about three quarters of your time on fund raising. Your first impulse is to just go out pouncing on voters. When you contact voters, you will need literature and other campaign materials including signs, possibly media buys if appropriate. All this costs money. Where will it come from? Not from what's left of your 401(k)... not from mortgaging your home... but from supporters. If you don't have supporters, you won't have too many votes either. It's fine to plant a few hundred to a few thousand dollars seed money to get things started, but a successful campaign is built around many people multiplying the efforts of the candidate himself. Everyone who writes you a check becomes a supporter with an emotional investment in your ultimate victory... so when you win, don't forget the thank yous and don't be afraid to share the glory.

It may be counter-intuitive, but it's best to start out with people you know who can write the big checks. It could be someone you know from Lions, Rotary or you church. You may never have had any kind of in-depth conversation, but at least they know who you are. This doesn't mean they know everything about you, so be prepared to fill in the gaps. Put together a brief biographical sketch outlining your successes and applicable achievements. Take this, your budget and the page outlining your goals for the office and put it into a packet with other literature such as newspaper articles about you or your hot button issue, letters to the editor you may have written and campaign literature you may have at the time. Keep it looking professional, but don't make them too gold plated. This is your resume and prospectus. Give them this package. Let them look through it without interrupting their thoughts. They will ask questions if they have any.

Ask for an appointment to sit down and talk about your candidacy. Don't just grab them and stick your materials in their hand. Let them know this is something important you need to talk with them about. Keep in mind you complementing these people by asking for their advice and financial support. Don't be afraid of asking for more than they can give. They will tend to be flattered. Whatever you think they can give, double it. If you want five hundred dollars, ask for a thousand. They may just give it to you. On the other hand, if they can't you may well still get three to six hundred dollars and they will feel good that you thought they could write a check that large.

When you have the check in your hand, ask if they have 2 or 3 friends or acquaintances with similar values that might also want to help you accomplish whatever goal you set out in your materials. Get their names and phone numbers. Then, and this is the point that makes the whole thing work, ask they they would mind phoning these people to let them know you will be calling to set up an appointment with them. If this sounds intimidating, the first one or two may be, but if you are sincere about your desire to serve, keep your eye on the goal. It's part of the price of admission.

In addition to their financial support, ask if you can list them publicly as endorsing your candidacy. Some will say yes and some won't depending on the sensitivity of the issues and their position in the community.

While you are pursuing the large donor track, ask other like minded people to host what is commonly called a “meet 'n greet” in their home or business. These are usually simple events with light refreshments, coffee and soft drinks. It's best not to have alcohol to keep it business like. After a brief introduction by the host, the candidate should give the ten to fifteen minute version of the stump speech concluding with a short Q&A session followed by an invitation to become part of the campaign team. Ask those that appear to be interested in what you are doing if they could help with a $25 or $50 check. It's good to have bumper stickers, literature, yard signs, etc. available as election day approaches. When your are finished with the formal presentation, mingle and make some new friends. Don't be afraid to ask these people to host a party of their own. Politics is a people business.

This may seem like a lot of effort for a few small checks, but these small checks represent the backbone of your campaign effort. The people that write these smaller checks will tell their friends about you... and they too have an emotional interest in you victory on election day. They may turn out to be the ones knocking on doors or working the polls for you.

As spring turns to summer for a November election, you can back off to about half your time spent on fund raising and mid to end of August back to a quarter of your time. It really is a never ending, but necessary process.

To make the most of this whole process, everyone you meet should be added to your mailing list... preferably, emailing list, both for the cost and the immediacy of the message. Send them campaign updates, event schedules and invitations. With every piece, email or snail mail, include the opportunity to contribute more. In the email either include a PayPal link or a link back to the donation page on your web site. And yes, a web site is essential to getting your message out, but that's a story for another day.

One last thing, one essential member of your campaign team is the treasurer. This person needs to be someone you trust implicitly as, depending on the level of office, some pretty large amounts will be flowing through the account. This person must be detail oriented to get the myriad of reports filed correctly and on time. This is one way the pros keep the amateurs out of the game. While it may not be fatal, you do not need press coverage of contribution irregularities distracting the public from your message.

As the title implies, if you are running for political office or seeking to influence public opinion, you need a web site. Today, having a web site it just part of the price of admission to play the game... unless you are running unopposed for a seat on the county water treatment board. Once you've piqued the public's interest, a web site is the place many people will go to find out more about you and your positions.

Because of this, your web site must look professional and your webmaster must have the ability to make quick changes and additions in response to issues that arise during the race. It is not a static advertising piece like a brochure, but a living document that reflects information and conflicts that come to light during an election cycle.

Communication of your message is the key to winning votes. Your web site lets you bypass, to some extent, the broadcast and print media with your entire story unfiltered by agenda driven reporting.

Obviously you want to have positive information about you and your family. You want the voters to see you as an honest, reliable, everyday kind of person that they can relate to. If you happen to live in a fifty room mansion, it probably would be best not to show it... your opponent certainly will... but don't make a big deal about it.

Invite people to events, give directions to make sure they get there. Show pictures of supporters having a good time or cheering you on. Let them know there is a vibrant and growing grassroots group promoting your candidacy.

Get key supporters to write short (2 to 3 paragraph) endorsements for site visitors to read. This is particularly important if you don't have a great deal of name recognition yet. By doing this you are, in a sense, borrowing the recognition accorded your supporters and taking advantage of their public persona. This can be critical in bridging the gap if your opponent is better known by the public.

Put together a downloadable press kit for any members of the media that may be looking for background information about you. You want to make sure they get the details correct so they don't work off of rumors and innuendo provided by your opponent or uninformed sources. This should include a brief biography, outline of your positions, campaign itinerary, and an official campaign portrait. You should also include an archive of press releases issued by your campaign.

The contents of your positions page allow you move beyond the sound bite journalism used by most outlets. Instead of a quick and sensational quote that may or may not adequately let the voters know where you stand, this is your opportunity explain how you came to the conclusion you did and why your position is better for the voters than your opponents. You can add links to references that bolster your positions and prove your point. This is especially important if you are going against “conventional wisdom” and impressions that “everyone knows” to be true.

The last thing to include is something that has become increasingly important over the past few election cycles. That is a fund raising page. Being persistent, but not obnoxious, in giving supporters opportunity to contribute will help increase your campaign account and maximize your chance of winning on election day. Don't forget to acknowledge contributors. You may want to give them the option of not being listed as some business people tend to shy away from public political discussion. The information is usually available to those looking into election records, but it is best to respect their wishes.

Unlike the Field of Dreams, just building a web site will not make the come. Make sure your web address appears on all campaign literature, including print and broadcast ads. Make sure your webmaster does his best to optimize it for search engines. That is a topic far beyond the scope of this article, but, suffice it to say, it is that important.

Promote your site everywhere you go, at public appearances, on applicable blogs and anywhere you “press the flesh”. It is your story, completely under your control. This is what you want people to know about you.