When the Cash for Clunkers plan was first announced, it appeared to be a flawed plan right from the start. There were some obvious problems with the scheme to get people into more politically correct green friendly cars. With the plan only a few days into operation, the plan has successfully seduced so many more people to trade in there bigger, safer cars to snag their share of taxpayer or Chinese money that the initial billion dollars has already swirled down the drain. The government is busy patting itself on the back and proclaiming the program a total success. But is it?

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 54% of the voting public was against the plan while 35% favored it. Among those with a little more financial interest, 62% of investors thought it should not be done... and an even 50% of all respondents felt that if they were going to run a program like this, it should be restricted to American made cars. However, like so many programs coming out of our nations' capitol... bailouts, health care and all sorts of things we haven't even been told about, the desires of the people... as in “We the People”... have been ignored in favor of elitist programs and schemes to involve the government in more areas of our lives.

Let's look at what really took place in our country. Thousands of buyers have happily driven away from lots in their shiny new or late model cars, with salesmen and women tallying their skyrocketing commissions and dealers themselves hoping they were going to see the promised money. The scenario fits perfectly the thinking of the current administration... transferring dollars to supposedly disadvantaged or favored and adding burdens to evil business owners.

Several dynamics were at work in each transaction... let's look at them.

The most obvious action was people who may have been thinking of replacing their current mode of transportation for a new one saw the incentive of having their fellow citizens chip in to help pay for their car. Often, these were people who could already afford a car and perhaps were planning to buy one in the next year or two. This program just compressed the process. I guess it goes back to the definition of fairness promoted by many in our government for many years... that someone else pays for my benefit. It's human nature... and not the nicest side of it.

However the they are not home free with no down side. In many cases, people have traded in a functioning automobile that carried no payments for another, probably better car, with significant payments. In other cases, some who could not quite swing the deal for the car found a way, with the incentive, to squeeze it into their budget. At a time when people are trying to cut down on their debts, these buyers have been convinced to join the federal government in increasing their monthly expenses in spite of increasingly insecure employment situations. We saw what happened when easy terms and low interest rates drew more and more people into the housing market who should not have been there... to the detriment of the themselves, lenders and our country in general. One has to wonder if this is just a repeat of a foolish strategy that may drive us into even more negative circumstances.

The salesmen are loving the increase in sales at car lots that have been devoid of customers for months. Customers have been waiting in line just to talk to one of these purveys of economical transportation. Assuredly, they will see some massive checks, but at what cost? Customers may have bought their new car next month, or a few months down the road, even into the next year. So we see a spike in sales this week at the cost of many future sales that would have given them a steady income over the months to come.

The dealers are seeing cars roll off their lots in, sometimes, record numbers. They have been told to sell the car, fill out the 1040 type forms, and wait for their payments... if they are approved. Already reports are coming in that submissions are being rejected... meaning the dealer is not getting the money. With hundreds of thousands of cars on the streets through this program combined with the efficiency and effectiveness of the government in getting payments out the door... this could conceivably be responsible for closing more dealers than the auto companies themselves as, essentially, the dealers have to pay off new cars coming out of their floor plan, pay commissions to salesmen and cover a variety of costs of doing business. The more successful they are, the more they are depending on the government to keep its word in a timely manner.

The cars themselves show the desire of the administration to destroy anything they just don't like. They're not all junkers... some are decent transportation for someone without a lot of money, yet, but terms of the agreement, they must be destroyed withing a few days... long before any payments will be received from our Big Brother in Washington. They cannot even be sent to junk yards for salvage, but are destined to be crushed and melted down. So strong is their desire to remove these politically incorrect vehicles from the streets, our “benefactors” don't have any concern for the less financially well off they claim to want to help by shrinking the supply of inexpensive vehicles.

The administration, and even some Republicans who should know better, are touting the plan as a massive success, to the point of looking for an additional two billion dollars from the American people beyond the initial one billion allocated to the plan. All one can do is only look back at one of the gravely voiced Everett Dirksen's favorite quotes, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.” Unfortunately, the damage goes far beyond the dollars down the drain.

There's an old saying that we are known by the company we keep. In spite of the culture that wants to tell us that new is good and ideas and things that have been around for a while are just plan old fashioned, this statement has the same ring of truth it did when it was first uttered. Of course we don't hear too much of this from the media and political elites who proclaim the purity of their messianic president who counts among his associates, past and present, a guy who bombed the Pentagon, a preacher who hates America, a Secretary of the Treasury who didn't pay his taxes and a thug former congressman from Chicago.

It must be difficult for Democrats to look through the prism of right and wrong when their dreams of national domination are so close at hand. Some of us are not even sure they could find the prism if they waned to. Minor missteps or major moral failures do not seem to be obstacles when long sought goals are within sight. Despite claims to the contrary, we are in an era when the end justifies the means.

It's easy to criticize the Democrats, and many of us have been doing it for years. We catch hold of any failure on their part, even down to the Vice President foolishly thinking JOBS is a three letter word. The self-righteous among us, myself included, have to look at our reasons for our criticisms of Democratic idiosyncrasies. Are we really upset with the moral failures of our opponents or is it just one more shoe to throw at people whose policies are so terribly wrong for our country? Are we taking the easy way out with personal attacks rather than actually explaining why our ideas are better?

It is kind of the easy way out and the big government crowd provides us with so much material to personally abuse them. I love Ann Coulter's writings and it's great fun to read and say nasty things about our oppressors, much like elementary school children telling embarrassing stories about their teacher. However, like childhood tales, our nitpicking does little good. Besides if we get into an insult contest, we conservatives toften loose. Our responses tend to be more witty... often going over the prejudiced head of our adversary, but theirs tend to be more visceral, unbounded by human decency or good taste at times. We tend to come out second best in the publics' eyes because of the inherent checks built into the conservative and Judaeo-Christian character and mindset.

What then, do we consciously set aside our standards so we, too, can wish kidney failure on the target of our rage? Or do we stay on message as to why the bailouts, nationalized health care or any issue du jour is a bad idea. The answer is, sort of. Ron Paul tried this approach and he had some really good ideas. But he was a little too professorial in his presentation to relate to Joe Sixpack who as been conditioned by sound bite journalism to expect answers in thirty second blocks.

Perhaps we need someone with his grasp of the issues and Ann Coulter's acid wit, combined with a little self deprecation so seldom seen in the political class, to be the spokesperson for the revitalized conservative movement. A little humor goes a long way in making the hard truths we have to tell more palatable and easily absorbed.

Once we turn the corner where our understanding of the world becomes more common knowledge, we can honestly take on the personal shortcomings within the statist government. Until then, we are just majoring in minors and the job won't get done. Until then, even if the personal issues are cured but our direction does not change, we are still on a downward spiral as a nation. Until then, let's go after those who would control every aspect of our lives with logic, passionate, humility AND humor.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has been giving his advice to the Republican Party. It echoes the suggestions of other liberals, some who claim to be within the party and some from the other side of the aisle. All of them tell us the key to success is to become more like the Democrats. By all indications, that's what we were doing. One has to wonder if they are trying to destroy the party or simply render it inoperative.

"I think my take on it was Colin had already left the party. I didn't know he was still a Republican," Dick Cheney told CBS' "Face the Nation." The same has been said about California's Governator and the Senators from Maine among others. Senator Specter of Pennsylvania was also the subject of similar speculation prior to his split from his former companions. These people have made careers of rejecting Republican orthodoxy and now they think that everyone else should join them in their rush to speed the destruction of our country.

The question then becomes, are Republicans so unsure of themselves that they will give up on their traditional small government emphasis to chase, what some tell them, is the key to electoral victory? Is it worth throwing party distinctives and grassroots supporters under the bus to cater to the fleeting fancies of media driven public opinion. Even if the answer is “yes”, the rest of us have to ask if electing Republicans that behave pretty much like Democrats is worth the effort.

The liberal wing (I shall not accept the fantasy of calling them moderates) of the party is actually embarrassed by those of us who cling to “guns and religion”. They particularly wish pro-lifers would just go away. Sophisticated people like themselves certainly don't take those things seriously. During the '08 campaign they thought it was bad enough to have a hockey mom like Sarah Palin on the ticket, but having a country singer appear with her at some events was especially mortifying. They look down there collective noses at people who love America like Hank Jr. If truth be told, they look down their haughty noses at people like you and me... yet they think we should be happy to carry their water as they pursue agendas damaging to us, the party and our country, just because they allow us to to be part of their entourage.

Before we, lemming like, rush to follow them off a cliff, it is fair to look at the good they've done for the country and the party. I've tried, and tried, but all I've seen are the times where they have set aside the Republican small government, low personal interference and low tax positions to join with those who want to create more intrusive, more expensive federal and state bureaucracies. Sometimes we work harder than others, but in no case, do we work for this.

The tea parties were a start, but somehow we need to break through the entrenched arrogance and let these people know that their track record does not justify following them to the assured defeat or pointless victories. Discussing this with some of them is almost like dealing with Democrats. Many of us argue issues while they call us troublemakers and accuse us of trying to splinter the party. Because of “moderate” performance, the party is already splintered. Somehow we have to get the message across that either we unite around small government and some social issues or the is no reason to unite.

I see no problem with the big tent party that some are prusuing. The more conservative of us should be more than happy to allow the middle-of-the-roaders help us restore the Republican Party and curb the excesses of Obama administration.

A group of influential Republicans called the National Council for a New America began a reconstruct-the-party tour at a pizza shop in northern Virginia. The message was, a la Frasier Crane, “I'm listening.” The cynic in me must observe at this point with all the tea parties and groups making loud noises about government expansion and intrusion into our lives in so many areas, and they still have to ask what people want? How loud do we have to shout to be heard?

The men in this group are good men, and yet I am amazed that even now, they come around and ask what it is the people want. Could it be like a child who goes from one parent to another hoping to get a better answer to his question? Could it be the massive discontent among the people has not sunken in? Or could it be that they are looking for better ways to package what they want to do already in terms that make the populace think they are listening? I like this last answer the least, but when anyone has been inside the beltway too long, the question has to be asked.

The reason that I, as a voter, am offended by this attempt to find out what we are thinking and wanting is that it tells me what I already know... that I have ignored for far too long. I am not a lobbyist who can make good things happen for them. I am not a financier with a briefcase full of money to contribute. I am not a union boss that can deliver votes by the thousand. I am just one of thousands who gathered at locations around the country on April 15.... and now they ask us what we want!

Making matters worse, we are told that the message, methods and approaches that, when used properly gave us victories in the past need to be set aside. There is some truth to this... times change and circumstances change, communication methods change. The are even telling us our message has to change so it won't offend people. The primary truth here is that conservatives have not been good at explaining WHY our approach is better. The government indoctrination centers called public schools have many convinced of the value of Big Brother's intervention and interference in our lives.

We are told that we need to get over the glory days of Ronald Reagan. We are told that we should forget about the man who told us: “Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.” and “The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.”

We are told that his approaches won't work today. I have no idea how they came to this conclusion as his philosophy has not been used in years. The fact that they are telling us these things on what is supposed to be a “listening” tour is indicative of the predilection of the political class to be in control.

What frightens me most is the nagging thought that some are simply looking to change the party's' marketing approach into something that sounds like what the people are looking for. It may just be market research. We have, for years, heard conservative messages from candidates, worked to get them elected and found them to something quite different once in office.

What we really need are the two qualities of integrity and courage... which is the one virtue that insures all the others. We've seen this in people like Michelle Bachmann from Minnesota and Sarah Palin, both principle driven ladies tend to make the old guard nervous but would be a great addition to this group, but have not been invited to take part.

All this does not mean we should not give them a chance to make amends for the past. If you have the opportunity to join one of these sessions, do it. Go in with the attitude of an employer doing a performance review. Don't accept condescending answers that tell you you just don't understand the big picture. Be polite, but remember they are the ones coming around trying to keep their jobs.

Leaders are currently going through an episode of pained hand wringing over whether the Republican Party should return to the values of its' base or pursue an almost valueless big tent philosophy where they agree to anything and stand for nothing. The problem is that even if this were resolved... relatively little would change. Over the past years, while those of us in the grassroots on both sides of the issue have been receiving lip service that tickled our ears, our representatives have been pushing and accepting more and larger programs that expanded the federal government in more and more areas of our lives.

Even when we still had Republican majorities, little progress was made to undo the abomination inflicted on our country through Roe v. Wade. We were patted on the head like a child and told it was a priority issue... but what progress did we see? We social conservatives are in much the same position that minorities are with the Democratic Party. Things may change for them in the near future... but I would not hold my breath. They, like we, need to be kept in a state of believing help is just around the corner if only we vote for our saviors in Washington.

All the while, the federal government has been growing by leaps and bounds under the rule of both parties. While there have been a few voices crying out in the wilderness they have been pretty well drowned out by party leaders taking a path that leads far from the thinking and desires of the people who worked to put them in office. A recent Rasmussen poll indicates that 69% of the GOP voters think Republicans in Congress are out of touch with the party base.

Is this possible? Would they really ignore the wishes of their constituents to favor special interests or the cronies? We know this behavior is part of Democrats DNA, but we expect more from the Republicans. We need only to look at the original stimulus bill which was passed after an initial flirtation with doing the right thing. Calls were coming in to all the offices at an unprecedented rate. One congressman said that the calls concerning the bill were about 50-50. Half said “No”, the other half said, “Hell NO!”. From other polling data, it seems that this was a pretty much universal response... yet the bill passed with so many Republicans voting for it.

Years back, Republicans were looking at dismantling the Department of Education. Under President Bush, congress, with Republican support, passed the No Child Left Behind legislation, one of the largest federal intrusions into, what is supposed to be, state run educational systems. It included many unfunded mandates which used to be an anathema to conservative lawmakers.

We see very little hew and cry about the expansion of government. What we do see is arguments about the direction of this expansion. With the coming of the Obamessiah, with his plans that go far beyond what any piker of a Republican could even dream or imagine, there is some ruckus being raised, but it is too late and they are only quibbling about the details. Almost everyone thinks the government must do “something”. Nobody really knows what, but everyone feels they must be seen taking steps to correct the problem government interference created in the first place.

So, let's not get too hung up on rhetoric of whether the government should sanction baby killing or not. Let's look at what steps our public servants have taken to change the situation. Then we need to look at the additional rules, regulations, taxes, fees and other restrictions on our freedom coming from our Washington, and our state capitols for that matter, and see where our representatives have stood on the issues. If they seriously fought them, we need to support them with all we can. If they, like sheep, went along, they need to be reminded that they work for us and that their loyalties had better lie with us if they wish to keep their positions of power. We, the people, loaned them the power and we, the people, can take it back!

Ever needing material to fill a twenty four hour news cycle, the talking heads were all atwitter about the defection of Arlen Specter to the dark side. The story fit their their template, something bad happening to the Republican is always worth reporting. Only, this isn't anything particularly bad for the party. Sure it appears that the Dems are that much closer to the to a filibuster proof majority, but since when has Senator Specter been a reliable soldier in the battle against expanding government or a staunch defender to a baby's right to be born?

The recent stimulus fiasco is only one of many where he threw his Republican colleagues under the bus simply because he was out of step with mainstream Republican thinking. His assertions that the party had moved to the far right away from him are some of the most humorous comments he's made with a straight face. Anyone who has been paying any attention knows the alternate explanation is much more to the point. The Republicans of Pennsylvania are finally getting their act together and demanding someone with principles carry their banner.

This has been in the works for some time as there are various groups looking to run candidates in primaries against Republicans who have been collaborating with the enemy. This battle has been won without the anticipated fight. Will Specter be a viable candidate as a Democrat when he's been portrayed for years as an evil Republican who wanted to steal childrens' lunches and prevent the homeless from taking walkin' around money and voting two, maybe three times? Time will tell.

Is Arlen Specter the first of many to fall under the threat of retribution by the own constituents? One can only hope so. Party organizations tend to support incumbents with little regard for their value in furthering common agendas. President Bush even helped Specter overcome a conservative primary challenge last time around. So it is up to the grassroots activists to find candidates, support them and get them elected.

Specters' departure put Pennsylvania Republicans at a cross roads. Given the opportunity to select a candidate that represents traditional values, they have also been given a tremendous responsibility. Republicans in the mushy middle are always sharing their opinion to anyone who will listen that conservative candidates can't win, particularly in a state like Pennsylvania. Many, I'm sure will be working behind the scenes to prove they are right.

This danger of embarrassing defeat should come as no surprise as with privileges come responsibilities. The responsibility in this case is to present these American values to the narcissistic culture in such a way that they will understand that freedom over slavery to an all encompassing government is better for them. They need to see that having the ability to build your own life is better than taking the one the bureaucrats decide to give them. They need to comprehend that we are safer by exhibiting strength than by depending on the good will of those who hate us.

This means we have to go beyond simply calling our leftist opponents names like “liberal” or “socialist” or, more accurately, “fascist”. We have to explain why they are wrong, and in doing so, we have to overcome the work of the government indoctrination centers, sometimes called the public schools, and most of the media who hang on every word the President reads off the teleprompter.

This will require more effort and a better understanding of the issues. We need to be more intellectually involved, as slogans will no longer do the job. But, it's not as bad as it sounds. Traditional American values outline the path we should be taking and our support for them is based on proven logic, not convoluted theory promoting ideas that have never worked anywhere they have been tried.

For those who claim to be Christians, we need to be fighting the battle the way George Washington did... on our knees. We need to put forth all the effort we can, but in the end, the victory will come, as Zechariah 4:6 tells us: “Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,” says the LORD Almighty.

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.

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.

In 1966, while running for Governor in California, Ronald Reagan's formulated what has come to be known as the Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." This was in response to the trash talk about conservative 1964 presidential candidate Barry Goldwater by so-called moderate Republicans. In general is was a pretty useful and workable rule at the time.

However today it seems to only work in one direction as we have seen in the uncivil treatment received by Ron Paul and others at the conservative/libertarian end of the spectrum. While conservatives have gotten used to the being ostracized and having lies and half truths told about them, the more moderate members of the party seem to have much thinner skin.

We are told we should not be criticizing Republicans who are throwing conservative principles under the bus as the country plunges downward in an economic tailspin. While party members are squelched when bringing this up, polls show more anger among conservatives at the Republicans than Democrats. This should be cause for concern by those counting on this voting block.

The practice of catering to incumbents, despite a lack of adherence to generally accepted, smaller, less intrusive government thinking has led the party to silently take the poison pill of semi-Democrat influence in the leadership positions. Yet no one is supposed to speak up.

We saw this in action when President Bush supported Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter during his last primary fight against a conservative Pat Toomey. It was explained that we are better off with a “moderate” Republican who can win than with a real Republican who may not. While credit must be given for Senator Specter's support during the Clarence Thomas hearings, it could be argued that over the course his career, he has done as much damage to our country as many liberals in the Senate.

Part of the problem comes from the uneasy alliance between many of the professionals for whom the political game is a vocation devoid principled involvement and many in the grassroots who are motivated by causes and issues the other half can not comprehend. The “values voters”, as they are sometimes called, have this nasty habit of wanting candidates to stand for something other than just wearing the right jersey when trotting out onto the playing field.

This is an ongoing battle in which the professionals expect the values voters to stick with and work for the Republican Party as it is the only one that even gives lip service to their issues. Conservative candidates are labeled as “extreme” which really means they are more passionate some issue than the poll driven “moderates”. It means, also, that by invoking the eleventh commandment, the true believers are forbidden to point out the squishiness and wayward behavior of the traditional party leadership and office holders.

The last two national election cycles have shown that the public is catching on to this Democrat-lite in Republican clothing practice. Yet many of the political class continue to tell us that we should not stand so strongly on principle and be a little more amenable to the ideas of the left. They think this is where the people are going and the party must adapt.

There is only one word to describe this thinking: Wrong! It means that we who believe in values such as life, personal responsibility and the like need to be more vocal. We need to hold leaders to their promises and, if they don't perform, replace them! It's time to remember that voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. We can no longer accept being used and abused by political leaders who covet our votes but not our input.

Some will say that life would be even worse with people who don't even give the time of day to pro-life activists, second amendment defenders or property rights advocates. I would ask them, how much worse could it be than the situation we have now with an almost non-functional minority in both houses in Washington? The liberal/progressive left is poised to run roughshod over any semblance of common sense. Yet we are being told by many, that politically, we need to do more of the same that put us in this position.

It's time for those of us who value the promise of America and the values on which it was founded to reject the efforts of those who would silence us. It's time to move forward on what we know to be right rather than what we are told is expedient. It's time to consider what Charles Stanley's grandfather taught him, “obey God and leave all the consequences to Him.” We've tried everything else, now it's time we use right and wrong as our standard of involvement and support rather than practical expediency.

Have you ever noticed that you never hear the term Liberal Republican? Many believe there is no such animal... that the term is oxymoronic. Actually the term is just moronic. To the press, and many others, Republicans are assumed to be conservative, by which they mean extreme. Those that don't qualify as Reaganesque are called moderates, as if there is some sort of virtue to living in the mushy middle.

I'm reminded of the line from Barry Goldwater's 1964 acceptance speech that chased the “moderates” in the New York delegation from the hall. And what awful thing did he say?
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” Apparently the “moderates” did not believe that liberty and justice should be pursued with everything we've got.

Unfortunately the actions of more and more Republicans shows that they too would run away from this statement. The most notable are the three who broke from a party just discovering the value of unity. While not from New York, it should be recognized that they are also from the northeast. What can be said of those who supported the current spending orgy coming out of the land inside the beltway?

Can they really be thought of as moderate in any way, shape or form? Can the rest of us join in their excitement at having trimmed a hundred billion dollars from an eight hundred billion dollar spending package? If you had three children, could you be happy if you convinced a kidnapper to only take one rather than all three? Would we have felt any better if only 2,000 hundred people died on 9/11 rather than 3,000?

Politics is said to be the art of compromise. However when we are faced with a choice of right or wrong, only the morally ambiguous can feel satisfied with a compromise. Suppose FDR had been able to negotiate a treaty with Adolf Hitler, whereby only 3 million Jews would have been slaughtered. Would the former paper hanger have been less of a monster?

No, there are times when, win or loose, we need to take a stand against something that is patently wrong. To compromise and give our assent to something that is plainly wrong lessens our stature among those around us and in our own eyes. When these people abandoned their core principles, or at least what they said were there core principles, they showed themselves to be untrustworthy and unreliable. They showed themselves to be something many thought did not exist. By siding with liberals, they became indistinguishable from them. They showed themselves to be Liberal Republicans.

Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are not alone. Each just unmasked themselves one more time. Knowing there are such beasts among us should help us to be prepared to deal with them and not be afraid to root them out as soon as possible. If we don't we will be lulled into a false sense of security by simply looking at numbers. Beware – you may run into Democrats in Republican clothing. I certainly have.