Why Conservatives Must Engage Urbanism

Is there a place for conservative urbanism?

That was the question prompted by Charles Marohn’s recent New Urbs article, “The Conservative Case Against the Suburbs.” Ben Adler, an environmental reporter over at Grist, said the conservative base will never listen to the lonely (though growing!) conservative urbanist voices. Keith Miller at Mere Orthodoxy argued conservative urbanists are abusing Ronald Reagan’s political legacy in favor of elitist technocratism. Both pieces help illustrate just how limited urbanist politics have been, and just how important the New Urbs project (along with our like-minded friends across the conservative landscape) could be for broadening this discussion.

Adler documents how “urbanism is actually growing in popularity among a small cadre of conservative intellectuals,” who “understand that the traditional town design favored by urbanists—houses that face the street, with porches and stoops, sidewalks, public parks, and shared mass transit—fosters strong communities.” Yet he warns: “Just don’t expect their ideas to catch on in conservative America.” He continues, “The main problem for conservative urbanists isn’t the quality of their arguments, but rather that they fall on deaf ears within their own movement.” Adler argues that popular American conservatism is about tribalism before principles, and subsidized suburbia suits them just as Tea Party retirees are fiercely defensive of their own entitlement checks. American conservatives are coal-rollersand Sarah-Palin-Big-Gulp celebrators, who “have adopted pro-market, small-government values as a loftier framework for their politics of resentment.”

Source: The American Conservative. Read full article.

Raynard Jackson: Cain Was Not Able

Former presidential candidate, Herman Cain, proved that despite a load of God given talent, he was unable to be a serious contender for the highest office in the land.

In the immortal words of former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, “to every man there comes a time when he is figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered the chance to do a great and mighty work; unique to him and fitted to his talents; what a tragedy if that moment finds him unprepared or unqualified for the moment that could be his finest hour.”

Cain, by far, was the best candidate in the Republican field in terms of oratorical skills and ability to connect with an audience. But, like Sarah Palin, he refused to take the necessary time to study the issues so he could articulate thoughtful answers to basic questions one would expect a presidential candidate to speak upon.

South Sudan: Birth of a Nation

July 9th, 2011 marks the creation of South Sudan the newest country in Africa and the 196th sovereign nation. After years of wrangling, fighting and talking the once one million square miles strong and largest country in Africa is officially split into two independent countries. A million congratulations to all Sudanese on both sides of the border.

Despite what some in the West might want us to believe, this agreement was arrived into amicably and somewhat peacefully – somewhat because the history of the two people is full of conflicts and violent bloodshed. However this particular declaration was achieved peacefully and with mutual agreement.

What about Abyei I hear you ask!?

Like the majority of Africa, Sudan is a tribal nation, even today when a person is introduced the first thing they are asked is where they come from – which tribe and what’s their kin. Sudanese, even the better educated identify and pride themselves by where they came from – it is also extremely important in matters of business, marriage and many social, economic and political issues.

At first glance it might sound alien but if we look closely it’s not all that dissimilar to how the West operates – maybe less sophisticated and more in your face nevertheless not too different. Take politics and the political class for instance – who and where a person is from can equally open and close doors – a Kennedy, a Bush or even a Clinton is not the same as a Palin, an Obama or even a Reagan in the US. An Oxbridge educated upper class with the appropriate contacts and breeding will top any political party list and every opportunity will come their way without the need for any special measures here in the UK!

Abyei is a small region in the heart of Sudan inhabited by two different tribes Dinka who are pure African in origin and culture and the Messeria who are of Arab decent and lead a nomadic life. The two make their living from cattle; both tribes graze their animals around the river basin but also freely travel around the region in dryer seasons for fodder. For years the two lived side by side and existed in a harmonious understanding.

When the Sudan split, the borders cut in the middle of that region separating it into the two countries therefore restricting their movement and their way of life. That’s what the dispute is really and truly about – the inhabitance who for years lived, married shared cultures and yes sometimes fought, don’t want to become separated – but the two governments can’t agree on an amicable resolution. Logic says pronounce Abyei a neutral zone – but I’m sure it’s not that simple – however it can be!

The right and just thing to do will be to allow the two nations – Sudan and South Sudan – resolve this situation and arrive to a peaceful resolution with as little interference as possible from the Church, Muslim Schoolers and of course the oil thirsty states.

Happy Independence Day South Sudan

About the Author: Walaa Idris was born in Germany to Sudanese parents studying for their PhDs. When she was four years old she returned to Sudan where she attended a traditional Catholic Missionary Convent. After gaining a BA degree in Psychology, Sociology and Economics from Indiana University, USA, she returned to Sudan and set up a social enterprise to help families in rural communities to improve their education and health. With the political climate in Sudan growing increasingly unpleasant, she moved to London where she has been living with her family since 1991.Today, she owns and runs a property consultancy and offers advisory services to small business setups.
http://www.walaaidris.com/about/

The "Mamma Grizzly" is on the prowl! Sarah Palin Releases "New" Video

Crystal Wright: GOP Doubtfuls for 2012

If the current crop of declared GOP presidential contenders is the party’s field of dreams for 2012, we’re in real trouble. Reviewing the line up thus far, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Tim Pawlenty, the group has the charisma factor of a ball of wax. Let’s face it charisma is more than 50% of presidential candidates appeal and for the most part this group is just plain dullsville when stacked up against Obama.

So far, Republicans’ quest for the White House in 2012 is looking more like a bad reality show at best, giving team Obama ample room for confidence the president will win a second term. Comb over, business titan Donald Trump’s flirtation with running for president was truly embarrassing. This week, just when we thought he couldn’t top his ridiculous press conference, taking credit for forcing Obama to reveal his birth certificate, Trump declared he wouldn\’t run for president but “I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and, ultimately , the general election.” Hardly, Americans won’t elect a birther as president.

Going Rogue: A “Palin”tologist’s Review

By: Leette Eaton-White

Sarah Palin the ever controversial political super star released her best seller auto-biography Going Rogue last week. Already a selling success the book details her life, and the failed 2008 Vice Presidential Campaign. Though the campaign to make John McCain POTUS failed, Sarah has been a wild success amongst conservatives and fair minded politicos.

Her down to earth demeanor and straight forward speaking style captivated the core of the GOP and infuriated the Left Wing and its Hollywood babysitters. Striking fear into the hearts of her critics Palin’s book comes out swinging at those who unfairly criticized her, but unlike most politicians she takes plenty of time to acknowledge her own, and many mistakes.

Detailing life and Alaska the book begins with a gorgeous rich description. As a matter fact some of the description was so exact I thought The Joy of Painting’s Bob Ross hijacked Sarah’s book and I could swear I began to hear “Wonderful, Wonderful Day” playing in my head followed by “The Sound of Music”, and I swear to you that is not an exaggeration… I had a very goofy smile on my face while reading such descriptions… as if people on the NYC subway didn’t already think I was crazy by actually reading Going Rogue in the first place.

Sarah discusses her average family and average life growing up in Wasilla and her unique love of sports and her dedication to teamwork. She talks about her children, and labor, fishing and even lets us in on her relationship with Todd. Then she starts in on politics. There is no denying Sarah on what she is politically. She is everything she ever presented herself as. She is a passionate social and fiscal conservative. No surprises there. She recounts in great detail her early days at City Hall fighting the status quo and former allies.

She repeats her political views throughout her story with relevant consistency. She also talks McCain, the Campaign and the staffers who went from helpful to her to hurting the campaign within a matter of weeks. The book has a surprising free flowing and natural eloquence that most would not expect of Sarah and clarity that makes you feel as though you were watching the events described unfold. Bottom line: It’s worth the read no matter what, if you like Sarah even a little bit, it’s worth the buy.

About the Author: Leette Eaton- White is a native New Yorker and a full time student studying Forensic Psychology. She has been a Conservative Republican since 2002, finding her Republican roots at the age of 15. HipHopRepublican opened the gateway for her to start her political activism in urban areas and across the net.Contact - Leette4hhr@gmail.com

THE EMBODIMENT OF THE AMERICAN DREAM: COLIN L. POWELL

by Cleo E. Brown

Colin Luther Powell is an example of a modern day African-American Leader. Both a military man and a statesman, Colin Powell was born in a Harlem Neighborhood of New York City, New York on April 5th, 1937. He grew up in the South Bronx. His parents, named Luther and Maud Powell, were Jamaican Immigrants who instilled with-in Colin Powell the importance of education and personal achievement.

Despite their mentoring of Powell, however, his high school years were not valuable to him. Powell both attended school in the New York City Public School system and worked in a store on evenings and weekends. Although he felt a sense of fulfillment in his work, he did not distinguish himself in school until, after graduating from high school, he enrolled at The City College of New York (CCNY) where he majored in Geology.

He also enrolled as a member of The Reserve Officer’s Training Corps (ROTC) where he found his calling. Inspite of graduating from CCNY in 1958 with the rank of Colonel and a Bachelor’s Degree in Geology, his grade point average was that of “C”. This G.P.A., however, did not prohibit Powell from advancing in his career as a military man since he entered the Army with the rank of Second Lieutenant. Nor did Colin Powell’s average G.P.A. at CCNY prohibit Colin Powell from earning and receiving an MBA from George Washington University in 1971. Although his grades at CCNY in other subjects had been low, Powell graduated at the top of his ROTC Class indicating his military genius.

Colin Powell saw two tours of duty in Viet Nam. During his first tour of duty, in which he served as an Army Advisor from 1962 to 1963, until he was wounded “while on patrol in a Viet-Cong held area…by stepping on a punji stake.”(Wikipedia, Colin Powell Biography, p.2) He was awarded, consequently, a Purple Heart Medal and a Bronze Star Medal . From 1968-1969 Powell served a second tour of duty in Viet Nam in the same battalion which had earlier been responsible for The My Lai Massacre. This time, he was wounded when his helicopter crashed. Despite his own injuries, however, he rescued everyone in the helicopter including his Commanding Officer. (Academy of Achievement, Colin Powell Biography, p.1)

For his bravery, in this instance, Colin Powell was awarded The Soldier’s Medal. Colin Powell did a third tour of duty in Asia in which he was a battalion Commander in Korea having earned the Army rank of Colonel. He also served as Commander of the 101st Airborne Division and V Corps for The United States Army in Europe before he returned to The United States. (Lucidcafe:Library, Colin Powell Biography,P.1) Stateside, he was The Commander-in-Chief of Forces Command at Fort McPherson, Georgia in 1989. (Wikipedia, p.3) This promotion came after he had served as National Security Advisor for Ronald Reagan following the Iran-Contra Scandal. Later in the year (1989) Reagan named Powell to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Colin Powell had achieved the rank of Lieutenant General when he began work as The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. (Wikipedia, p. 5) By January 20th, 2001 he had been appointed U.S. Secretary of State by President George W. Bush Jr. (Colin Powell, however, who did not approve of The Bush Administration’s handling of the Iraq War, resigned this post shortly after President George W. Bush Jr. was re-elected for a second term. Time was to prove Powell correct.)

Colin Powell was not registered as a Republican Voter until 1995. He had previously registered as an Independent Voter feeling that it was his duty as a soldier and as a citizen of the United States to work on behalf of both The Democrat and The Republican Parties. Powell, consequently, voted for Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964, yet accepted a prestigious White House Fellowship to work under President Richard M. Nixon from 1972 to 1973. (Wikipedia, p. 3) Powell, similarly, worked for the Presidential Administration of James Earl Carter as an Assistant to the Deputy of Defense and to the Secretary of Energy.(Academy of Achievement, p.2) He also held the position of Chairman of The Joint Chiefs of Staff under President William Jefferson Clinton. Powell and Clinton, unfortunately, however, disagreed over policy concerning gays in the military. Colin Powell, consequently, resigned his commission deciding to pursue other endeavors. (Academy of Achievement, p.2)

While he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, however, Powell’s marketability as a political candidate became quite clear. Both political parties, therefore, tried to claim him as one of their members. The Democrats sighted his work on behalf of Democratic Administrations while The Republicans sighted his work on behalf of Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and George H. W. Bush. Finally, in 1995, Colin Luther Powell openly declared himself a Republican campaigning exclusively for Republican Candidates. (Wikipedia, p.6) Powell, however, had no taste for politics which he has likened to a popularity contest. Despite his personal opinion, however, he has been rumored to be the favorite for positions such as President and Vice-President of the Untied States although these opportunities have never materialized.

In 2008, inspite of his strong Republican Party Membership, he supported the Democrat Barrack Obama for the office of President of the United States. (Colin Powell had donated the maximum amount of money possible to John McCain’s campaign during the summer of 2007.) As a Republican, Powell is considered to be a moderate Republican who supports “liberal and centrist causes.” (Wikipedia, p.10) Powell is pro-choice, and Powell is in favor of gun control. (Wikipedia, p.10) He also supports Affirmative Action Policy although he does not support preferential treatment if the Affirmative Action Candidate lacks the qualifications for the position in question. About his support of Barrack Obama for President in 2008 he has stated that he(Powell) believes Obama to be an all-inclusive candidate. Powell also questioned John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin, whom Powell did not feel was yet ready to manage the Nation should a tragedy befall McCain, as a running-mate.

Colin Powell’s wife is named Alma Vivian Johnson Powell. Alma Powell is from Birmingham, Alabama. The couple were married on August 25th, 1962. Colin and Alma Powell are the parents of one son, named Michael Powell, who was the Chairman of the Federal Communication’s Commission from 2001 to 2005; and two daughters named Linda and Annemarie. They are also the grandparents of two little boys named Jeffrey and Bryan. (Lucidcafe:Library, p.2) In 2005, the couple was awarded the Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars of the Smithsonian Institution. (Wikipedia, p. 13)

Having never forgotten his own troubled youth in The New York City Public Schools, in 1997 Colin Powell became Chairman of America’s Promise, the Alliance for Youth. The Alliance for Youth was a program which targeted at-risk youth based upon ethnicity and economic status in the inner-cities of The United States.

Currently, Colin Powell is a member of The Board of Trustees of Howard University, and a member of the Board of Directors of the United Negro College Fund. He also serves on The Board of Governors of The Boys & Girls Clubs of America and is a member of the Advisory Board of the Children’s Health Fund. (Lucidcafe:Library, p.2) Beginning with his position as National Security Advisor , Colin Powell was the first African-American to serve in this capacity. This tendency has proven true of every position he has held ever since. (Academy of Achievement, p.2) In addition to his Purple Heart, Bronze Star, and Soldier’s Medal, Colin Powell has won many other awards and honors including two Presidential Medals of Freedom (awarded by George H.W. Bush Sr. in 1991 and William Jefferson Clinton in 1993). He has also received The Presidential Citizen’s Medal.

About The Author: Cleo E. Brown has a Master’s Degree in Contemporary African-American History from The University of California at Davis in Davis, California. She also has a B.A. Minor Degree in Political-Science and has completed course work towards a Ph.D. in Education from The University of San Francisco in San Francisco, California. She is a Free Lance Writer and a Senior Editor at HHR.

The Irrational Hatred of Sarah Palin: Leette Eaton- White

Few things that come out of the ideological crazed super far left (not your average everyday liberals, but the real coo coo coco puffs) has anything to do with reason. But it is one thing to be irrational about issues, and quite another to be irrational about a person. Public figures have always been the butt of jokes, especially those who put themselves out there seeking attention. Politicians are no exception. Neither is Sarah Palin.

The media is free to make fun of her, by all means do so. But the media is unfortunately a part of the same crazed far left that I mentioned before. And instead of making fun of Sarah within reason, they bring her family into it. Not her husband, a grown man who could certainly handle a pun, but her kids. Her children who, some of which are just learning how to be adults; her kids who did not desire to be the items of ridicule on late night TV. But not only did they go after her kids, as it has always been from her initial entrance onto the national stage, it has become only increasingly cruel and incredibly unfunny.

Just the other evening David Letterman decided tact was of course not needed. It was a long night of dumping on Sarah but then he took it to a new low by saying this …. “One awkward moment though during the game, maybe you heard about it, maybe you saw it on one of the highlight reels. One awkward moment for Sarah Palin at the Yankee game, during the seventh inning, her daughter was knocked-up by Alex Rodriguez.”

Wow, Letterman is one classy guy.

The Palin Camp then released these two statements.

“Any ‘jokes’ about raping my 14-year-old are despicable. Alaskans know it and I believe the rest of the world knows it, too.”

- Todd Palin

“Concerning Letterman’s comments about my young daughter (and I doubt he’d ever dare make such comments about anyone else’s daughter): ‘Laughter incited by sexually-perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity aimed at a 14-year-old girl is not only disgusting, but it reminds us some Hollywood/NY entertainers have a long way to go in understanding what the rest of America understands - that acceptance of inappropriate sexual comments about an underage girl, who could be anyone’s daughter, contributes to the atrociously high rate of sexual exploitation of minors by older men who use and abuse others.’”

- Governor Sarah Palin

Letterman released a half assed apology this morning.

I don’t need to tell you whose side I am on. But I do need to tell you why I am siding with the Palins. The rule of decency has always been to leave the children of politicians (especially non- adult children) out of the jokes and any disparaging remarks concerning their parents. But Letterman not only violated that, he reached a new low by making it sexual. Let me be clear on this point. That was a sick, perverse, cruel, unwarranted, illogical, vitriolic remark; and there is nothing that can defend it, not even for sake of comedy because guess what… it wasn’t even funny. It was just wrong.

The constant need by the public left to attack Sarah Palin and her family won’t help them make Republican’s look bad. It won’t help liberals win elections, and it won’t help change the social makeup of this country. This is just one example of the hypocrisy of the left. I mentioned their inherent racism in my last article, and now their sexism is exposed yet again. Still they say Conservatives and Republicans are the sexist and racist ones!

Just a tip for those of you just starting to wet your feet in the political world there is a saying you should know. If ever you want to know what the left is doing, check out what they accuse the right of. It never fails.

Leette Eaton- White is a native New Yorker and a full time student studying Forensic Psychology. She has been a Conservative Republican since 2002, finding her Republican roots at the age of 15. HipHopRepublican opened the gateway for her to start her political activism in urban areas and across the net.

Leette4hhr@gmail.com

How the GOP Killed the Reagan Democrats

There was a time when conservatives led by Ronald Reagan, went after the Reagan Democrats. The GOP was interested in getting these blue collar voters in the Industrial Midwest.

But that was so, 1982.

By Dennis Sanders


There is a lot to be said about the whole Obama-taking-over-the-American-auto-industry line, but the thing that has been bothering me for months is how Republicans have dealt with the current situation, which is to say, they have dealt with it by acting rather boorish.

Now, I know some liberal wags will say that this is the only way that Republicans know how to act, but that is not neccessarily so. Listening to this recent comments like this one from Kevin Hassett and the recent glee from some conservatives on the Swedish Government deciding not to support Sabb as well as Senators like Richard Shelby rants against the the Big Three has made it seem to many a worker living in states like my native Michigan, Illinois and Ohio that the GOP doesn't give a damn about them or their lives.

And the fact is, those workers are in a way correct.

There was a time when conservatives led by Ronald Reagan, went after the Reagan Democrats. The GOP was interested in getting these blue collar voters in the Industrial Midwest.

But that was so, 1982.

Now, it seems that the GOP has lost interest in these states as they have with other parts of America save the South. There is a lot of cheering about how Sweden is allowing the free market to deal with Saab, and how we should be doing the same thing here. That is all fine and dandy. In some cases, it would make sense for GM and Chrysler to just deal with bankruptcy to get their financial houses in order.

And I agree with fellow conservatives that yes, the UAW has to share some of the blame here by wanting benefits and pay that was beyond what the companies could afford.

But what happens after that? What do you tell the guy who has worked at a GM plant in Michigan for 20 years and gets laid off in order to help GM restructure? What do you tell that person who might not have any other skills and now has to try to get retraining? What does the GOP has to say other than the wonders of the free market?

Right now, we have nothing to say and that has made that worker decide to vote for the Democrats since they do have something to say.

As the writer at New Majority.com who goes by "Henry Clay" notes, that a lack of real policy from the GOP means that the Republians have lost the Reagan Democrats.



He opines:

The near total collapse of the American auto industry in the Upper Midwest means that conservatives can finally stop their search for those working-class Reagan Democrats. In part because of the free-market revolution that Reagan inspired and presided over, the Reagan Democrats are now either retired and living in Florida or on public assistance.

Whatever happens next with GM and Chrysler, we are looking at further deindustrialization and depopulation for the Great Lakes states. And absent thoughtful reform on the part of conservatives to alter the course of these communities, this phenomenon will only further harden Democrat sympathies in the region.

The last 30 years have not been kind to the Upper Midwest, and its voters are increasingly unkind to Republicans. In 1980 Ronald Reagan won the state of Michigan, along with Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Those states gave Reagan 123 electoral votes. In 2008, Barack Obama won all of those states, but they gave him only 100 electoral votes.

Clay goes on to note how the the Reagan Revolution did win the Reagan Dems over, but even despite some successes, left them behind. His example is my hometown of Flint, Michigan: In spite of their decreasing electoral significance, Republicans cannot afford to ignore these communities. The Northeast and Pacific Coast are long gone. The Mountain West is trending leftward, and the last election showed that Republicans will have their hands full even in the once Solid South.

Reclaiming some ground around the Great Lakes is essential to a Republican revival, but the sympathies of these Great Lakes communities lie increasingly with the Democrats. Consider Michael Moore’s Flint, Michigan. Conceding that Moore is a congenitally dishonest person, his 1989 film Roger & Me did capture the impact of deindustrialization on this one local community. In 1960 the city’s population peaked at almost 200,000. Local GM employment hit a high of 80,000 in 1978. Today, the city’s population is roughly 110,000. And following the 2006 round of GM buyouts, only 8,000 GM workers remained in Flint.

Conservatives should not be afraid to acknowledge that for all of its successes, the Reagan Revolution left Flint and many other post-industrial communities behind.

Instead, however, conservative sentiment is too often a combination of satisfaction that the UAW finally got what was coming to it and belief that citizens in these towns are free to vote with their feet if they are not satisfied with their station.


Republicans don't have to try to prop up GM and Chrysler, but they do have to do something for the many who will lose their jobs, be it money for retraining, or increased unemployment benefits for the newly unemployed. There needs to be a domestic policy answer to help people in Michigan and other states that have been hard hit by the woes in the auto industry.

So, why haven't conservatives come up with any ideas? I think part of the problem is that the GOP has become to see conservatism as more of a lifestyle than a guiding ideology. It has become a place that welcomes those who fit into the movement and ignores those that don't fit. In this case, since conservatives don't like unions, they see the workers at GM, Ford and Chrysler as getting what was coming to them. Conservatism has gone from being interested in governing to being interested in being countercultural, in not fitting in or as David Frum notes, it is more interested in protest than in politics. As David Frum goes on to say:


We saw a country divided in two, red states and blue, NASCAR vs. NPR, real America against the phonies in the cities. A movement that had begun as an intellectual one now scornfully pooh-poohed the need for people in government to know anything much at all. But expertise does matter, and the neglect of expertise leads to mismanagement and failure — as we saw in Iraq, in Katrina and in the disregard of warning signals from the financial market. It was under a supposedly pro-market administration that the United States suffered the worst market failure of the post-war era, and that should have sobered us. Instead, we rallied to Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber.


Disregarding evidence and expertise, we shrugged off warnings of environmental problems. One consequence: In 1988, the elder George Bush beat Michael Dukakis among voters with four-year degrees by 25 points. In 2008, Barack Obama won the BA and BSc vote, the first Democrat to do so since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.


Conservatives stopped taking governance seriously — and so Americans ceased to trust conservatives in government.


What has happened is that we stopped caring about getting votes and winning elections. What is happening is that there is some cache of being seen as out of touch, culturally alienated. The Republican party has become a support group for conservative culture, a place of safety in world that doesn't seem to friendly. While such a role for a GOP might offer safety and succor, it basically assures the GOP to be consigned to a minority party for a very long time.

As a Republican, I totally understand the notion of free markets and support it. I understand that the Big Three were slow to change and become more nimble in the marketplace and should suffer some consquences for that. I think unions aren't all bad, but they have done a lot to bog down the Big Three against their foreign competitors. I am not against seeing the Big Three face bankruptcy.

But I am also the son of two retired autoworkers. I might disagree with them on politics, but I respect their hard work. They went to work in pain, to make sure I had a good life. My dad worked for General Motors for almost 40 years and my mother for 25. It's hard work and their bodies show it. As their son, I can't tell them that they are on their own. I have to offer them and the many like them something more for their years of hard work.

If the GOP wants to be a winning party, it has to offer something to these workers. They can be pro-worker with out being pro-union. They have to be. Cheering the free market and telling these workers to drop dead is the way to ensuring the GOP's downfall.



Dennis Sanders - A pastor living in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He has worked on centrist Republican issues for years, including stints as President of the Minnesota chapter of Log Cabin Republicans (a gay/lesbian advocacy group) and Republicans for Environmental Protection. Dennis blogs at NeoMugwump and happily lives with his partner Daniel and serves two cats, Morris and Felix.

Why Republicans need to STRIP: A Random Guy's Perspective

A party cannot claim to be “fiscally conservative” when under its watch nondefense spending increases at almost as high a rate as under Lyndon Johnson8. A party, and its standard-beareer, cannot claim to support free-market capitalism and oppose social democracy, but preside over one of the largest “wealth redistributions” in American history, from the working and middle classes to the upper classes.

By Steven Powell

When Barack Obama won the presidency on November 4, 2008, our party fell into disarray. Obama had won unprecedented victories in Indiana, which had not gone to a Democrat in almost 40 years, as well as the once “Solid South”. Every Republican was forced out of his or her seat in New England. Conservatives, moderates, and libertarians all began attacking each other. Social conservatives were attacked by more secular conservatives. The Party was left reeling and wondering what caused the disaster, how best to recover, and who to blame for this turn of events.

Much of this blame has fallen on Sarah Palin, since near the end of the campaign season she was viewed quite unfavorably by the larger voting base 1(although she remains immensely popular among Republicans), and what was seen by some as a very nasty embrace by John McCain of negative, personal tactics that seemed to be off-message in the face of a very serious economic crisis.

Ultimately though, however favorable one's view of John McCain may or may not be, his loss was not entirely his fault. His loss, along with the loss of many other good Republicans and conservatives on election night, was mainly due to his associations with what are seen as wrong-headed neoconservative policies, and the numbers seem to back it up. For all the talk of record turnouts this election cycle, turnout was up only about 1-2% nationwide from 20042.

And while the size of the electorate remained practically the same, the President's approval ratings remain low while 83% of people believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction3. Even while the country is still in shock from the terrorist attacks 7 years ago, majorities polled still disapprove of the Iraq war4.Obama's share of white and middle-class voters, the lifeblood of the Republican Party, increased by sizable margins over John Kerry's from 200456, and even religious conservatives were not immune to a shift in allegiances, with substantial increases in the young Evangelical vote from 2004 as well as a majority of the Catholic vote going to Obama.7

The reversal of fortune for the Republican Party began in 2006, when a public disappointed in a President seen as out of touch with ordinary Americans, building up executive power, and widening an unpopular war without their approval voted in a majority-Democratic Congress with a divided Senate. 2008 was merely a continuation of this expression of dissatisfaction – it speaks volumes when almost all the incumbents of a party which controls a Congress with an approval rating of barely 10% are voted in and actually gain a stronger footing. But then, this is also in part due to Republicans' unwillingness to provide an effective opposition to negative traits associated with the Democratic Party. A party cannot claim to be “fiscally conservative” when under its watch nondefense spending increases at almost as high a rate as under Lyndon Johnson8. A party, and its standard-beareer, cannot claim to support free-market capitalism and oppose social democracy, but preside over one of the largest “wealth redistributions” in American history, from the working and middle classes to the upper classes.


A Random Guy's Suggestions for the Future

1. Become a bigger-tent party...for conservatives: What I've been trying to say trying to say is that the current path of our party is unsustainable. The result of the 2008 election was that the Republican Party really only fared well and survived in the American South, and the “Reagan Coalition”of Southerners, neoconservatives, and the Religious Right, have been the main focus of the Party's policies, while alienating the rest of the nation along with many other factions of the conservative movement. As a result of this election, the coalition has largely been confined to the margins of American politics, and key constituencies have begun to flee the Party.

The leaders of our party have concerned themselves completely with the projection of American power, especially military power, and strict social conservatism, and as a result have left it as an ideological sect, while paradoxically allowing it to become a haven for leftists like Joe Lieberman. Conservatism is not merely defined by the hard-and-fast stances of partisan magazines; it is a living ideology with many diverse viewpoints on how to best “conserve” the American way of life. There are other kinds of conservatives such as fiscal conservaties, the secular Right, libertarian-conservatives (as Barry Goldwater was), traditionalist conservatives and the paleoconservatives (which both claim lineage from Russell Kirk and the members of the pre-Buckleyite Right, and have a connection to the modern national-conservatism of Europe). The election also proved that our Party cannot win with just Whites, so we have to tap the rich vein of minority social conservatism, while also trying to disprove the myth that the Democrats inherently represent minority economic interests. The Democratic Party prides itself as embracing a pluralism based on different races and classes of people...why can't we pride ourselves as a party that embraces a diversity of ideas?

2. Begin to reform our economic image: Our Party is frequently for using free-market language to justify subsidies for the wealthy. Sitting down talking with Democrats, the question is frequently asked: “Why can we support X the rich/a war but not [entitlement program Y]?” Sometimes this criticism isn't unfounded, but more often than not it's a conflict of arguments rather than policy. The Republican Party must show more of a commitment to a free market that eschews both positive AND negative intervention. Most economists agree, however, that unforseen changes in market conditions cause changes in the business cycle, and that an outside force needs to act to correct these. It's understandable for individual people to be angry that their tax dollars are being used to correct these; it's very rare for the government to step in to correct “externalities” in an individual's life, and certainly not due to poor decisions. Individuals pay private companies to provide for these externalities; it's called insurance. I'm no economist, nor will I try to be one, but why not let companies that represent key industries buying into a form of “baliout insurance” like an individual would – setting aside a one-time payment of taxpayer funds as a starter and allowing companies to pay into an insurance-like system at a certain percent of their income for a certain amount of their worth to be insured in case of a major crisis? Barring this, though, the Republican Party needs to figure out a way to keep the U.S. Economy vibrant without having to resort to more wealth redistribution.

3. Adopt a strategy for fighting terrorism that doesn't require frequent American intervention: The cost of projecting American power over the last eight years has all but erased the peace dividend left by Ronald Reagan at his Cold War victory and replaced it with unsustainable and increasing government spending, generated international controversy and damaged relations with many of our European allies, left behind several thousand Americans and others dead and injured, and a Shiite controlled government with possible ties to Tehran in power.

Historically, only 10% of terrorist groups have been cited as defeated by a military “victory.”9 Most of the time, terror groups are defeated by police work and by local opposition, and a conservative antiterror strategy must reflect this. Also, conservatives must not be blind to the power that these terror groups hold as social/political movements and quasi-governments themselves, which often provide some basic services10, and focus on wresting this power and influence from them.

Since WWII, and especially since the Cold War it has been all but taboo to pose the questions “Can the projection of American power actually be damaging to American interests?” and “(knowing this) What should be the logical limits of American power?” During the presidential primaries, the only Republican candidates willing to pose these questions were Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, and both were savagely attacked as a result. It makes no since for a right-wing movement to promote “responsible governance” and yet not use responsibility and skepticism when determining its policies. The next right-wing movement must be mindful of these questions, while keeping its objectives in mind, to formulate its strategy.

4. Return to the STRIP principle (Sovereignty, Tradition, Restraint, Identity, and Property) for policymaking. Out of all the things I've proposed, this one is by far the most important. These five principles, in one form or another, have formed the bedrock of conservatism for many decades. I believe they're universal ideological principles which can be applied to almost any problem, but they've been forsaken in recent years in favor of a “compassionate” conservatism which has driven the United States into bankruptcy. Reclaiming these principles and conquering our party's own problems will give us better moral footing to take on the Left's excesses and rebuild our image as a party of principle and a party with an ideology that is best to help Americans thrive and succeed in the world.


Steven Powell is a sophomore at MIT, Powell is currently majoring in both aeronautics and astronautics. Steven is an independent Republican who writes for HipHopRepublican.com on issues dealing with foreign policy and issues facing the Republican Party.

Race, Rhetoric, and the Republican Way

By Andrew Simon

Minorities are consistently polled as being *more* conservative, *more religious*, and more consistently right wing than any other segment of the American landscape. So why aren't we winning? Two words: Rush Limbaugh.

I sit down with a group of hard working, middle class African Americans to watch Mr. Limbaugh on CPAC. The response, to a man, was one of bewilderment, disbelief, and astonishment. What appeared to them as the apparent de facto head of the Republican Party using single mothers as punchlines. The loud, proud declaration that there is no "Spanish vote" or "minority vote" that needs to be approached, engaged, or even considered; that the keys aren't stronger, sound policies, they're angrier, less inclusive sound bytes.

"There is no compromise between good and evil."The last time I checked, the struggling single mothers I see doorknocking aren't evil, and they aren't "too stupid" to get the message either. She is not, as was suggested in the speech, the sort of liberals "we won't ever win over anyways." She is simply the symbol of millions of potential Republican voters, overwhelmingly socially conservative, but, understandably, slightly more concerned about her child turning up dead than turning out gay. The fact is, Rush is utterly off the mark in his rallying cry of "to hell with dialogue."

If our attempt to reach out to urban communities, instead of coming up with new, constructive policies that empower Americans to empower themselves in real, measurable, and substantive results, is to simply try to find the first candidates we can track down with a skin tone a few shades darker than Arnold after a day at the tanning booth, and get them to parrot Rush and Palin slogans in the inner cities... we really might as well stop pretending and just plain send white candidates to campaign in *actual* blackface.It's easy to be loud and angry and shake your saber against "the enemy." There's no real responsibility attached to it--and lets not kid ourselves, it's quite an entertaining, team building exercise.

The problem is, though, it doesn't help the team get any bigger. And it's not because we're not being loud enough for under-represented communities (or, post Rush, should that be "communities"?) to hear....it's because we've fallen in love with our own voices so much that we've stopped listening to what the communities are actually saying. It doesn't require "abandoning our values," either. It's simply a matter of fact that in numerous Republican states, strong local initiatives to support these groups already exists, providing assistance with re-education, retraining, and outreach. But instead of annunciating these success stories and showcasing Republican solutions to be clear, effective alternatives, they are drowned out and ignored in a sea of loud yelping voices and general disinterest.

As only one example of innumerable potential inroads, I personally spearheaded an initiate that brought children from poor communities together and provided free tutoring, mentoring, and fine & performing arts lessons. It proved that real change was possible, one "community" at a time, without big government or ANY government. It opened segments of communities that wouldn't have normally given us the time of day to realize that when we talk about extending "a hand up instead of a hand out" we don't just really mean extending the finger. All it took was a few volunteers and some elbow grease to open up scores of new potential prospects into our ranks....imagine if we took on efforts like that nation wide, and publicized them effectively? If low income parents could thank the grassroots efforts of a Republican Urban Agenda for improving the lives and the educations of themselves and their children?

We'd be living in a different political universe, my friends.But, as long as all we *really* need to focus on is "staying on message" and as long as the people in the party who strive to move forward with new ideas and new efforts to broaden the base are decried as sellouts or... worse yet..."In-tel-ec-tu-als" (complete with eye rolling), any such hopes are nothing but pipe dreams. Fixing those pipes will take more than being the party of Joe the Plummer. Steele recognizes this. Rush doesn't. It's easy to be loud when you don't have to be accountable for concrete results. It's harder to take the slings and arrows that come with tough decisions and real work. So for those content to shake their rattle at "the enemy," be my guest. I'll be busy supporting Steele and building the bridges that'll take us somewhere bigger and brighter in 2012.

~Andrew Simon is a conservative outreach specialist with a focus on establishing grassroots initiatives in under-served communities. His public speaking expertise has earned him considerable awards and recognition, including numerous international public speaking championships. He is an active contributor to HipHopRepublicans.com

"Race, Rhetoric, and the Republican Way"

"A baby is an alimentary canal with a loud voice at one end and no responsibility at the other."

-Ronald Reagan

By Andrew Simon

Minorities are consistently polled as being *more* conservative, *more religious*, and more consistently right wing than any other segment of the American landscape. So why aren't we winning? Two words: Rush Limbaugh.

I sit down with a group of hard working, middle class African Americans to watch Mr. Limbaugh on CPAC. The response, to a man, was one of bewilderment, disbelief, and astonishment. What appeared to them as the apparent de facto head of the Republican Party using single mothers as punchlines. The loud, proud declaration that there is no "Spanish vote" or "minority vote" that needs to be approached, engaged, or even considered; that the keys aren't stronger, sound policies, they're angrier, less inclusive sound bytes.


"There is no compromise between good and evil."

The last time I checked, the struggling single mothers I see doorknocking aren't evil, and they aren't "too stupid" to get the message either. She is not, as was suggested in the speech, the sort of liberals "we won't ever win over anyways." She is simply the symbol of millions of potential Republican voters, overwhelmingly socially conservative, but, understandably, slightly more concerned about her child turning up dead than turning out gay.

The fact is, Rush is utterly off the mark in his rallying cry of "to hell with dialogue." If our attempt to reach out to urban communities, instead of coming up with new, constructive policies that empower Americans to empower themselves in real, measurable, and substantive results, is to simply try to find the first candidates we can track down with a skin tone a few shades darker than Arnold after a day at the tanning booth, and get them to parrot Rush and Palin slogans in the inner cities... we really might as well stop pretending and just plain send white candidates to campaign in *actual* blackface.

It's easy to be loud and angry and shake your saber against "the enemy." There's no real responsibility attached to it--and lets not kid ourselves, it's quite an entertaining, team building exercise. The problem is, though, it doesn't help the team get any bigger. And it's not because we're not being loud enough for under-represented communities (or, post Rush, should that be "communities"?) to hear....it's because we've fallen in love with our own voices so much that we've stopped listening to what the communities are actually saying.

It doesn't require "abandoning our values," either. It's simply a matter of fact that in numerous Republican states, strong local initiatives to support these groups already exists, providing assistance with re-education, retraining, and outreach. But instead of annunciating these success stories and showcasing Republican solutions to be clear, effective alternatives, they are drowned out and ignored in a sea of loud yelping voices and general disinterest.

As only one example of innumerable potential inroads, I personally spearheaded an initiate that brought children from poor communities together and provided free tutoring, mentoring, and fine & performing arts lessons. It proved that real change was possible, one "community" at a time, without big government or ANY government. It opened segments of communities that wouldn't have normally given us the time of day to realize that when we talk about extending "a hand up instead of a hand out" we don't just really mean extending the finger. All it took was a few volunteers and some elbow grease to open up scores of new potential prospects into our ranks....imagine if we took on efforts like that nation wide, and publicized them effectively? If low income parents could thank the grassroots efforts of a Republican Urban Agenda for improving the lives and the educations of themselves and their children? We'd be living in a different political universe, my friends.

But, as long as all we *really* need to focus on is "staying on message" and as long as the people in the party who strive to move forward with new ideas and new efforts to broaden the base are decried as sellouts or... worse yet..."In-tel-ec-tu-als" (complete with eye rolling), any such hopes are nothing but pipe dreams.

Fixing those pipes will take more than being the party of Joe the Plummer. Steele recognizes this. Rush doesn't. It's easy to be loud when you don't have to be accountable for concrete results. It's harder to take the slings and arrows that come with tough decisions and real work. So for those content to shake their rattle at "the enemy," be my guest. I'll be busy supporting Steele and building the bridges that'll take us somewhere bigger and brighter in 2012.

~Andrew Simmons is a young black conservative from Canada who is a graduate of the University of Calgary, Alta where he was the President of the University’s Campus Conservatives He is both a free lance writer and political commentator on Canadian and American politics. Email: simon.enterprises@gmail.com

A Letter to Hip-Hop Republcans Critics

You discourage Mr. Steele from reaching out to the Hip Hop community, saying that it amounts to a waste of time, money, and energy. You say that despite any efforts to build bridges of commonality between Black and urban people of diverse backgrounds, the younger generations in America (18-29 years of age and 30-45 years of age) will not be swayed by the Republican Party. Funny, because historically, this argument was made repeatedly for a period of time (roughly 80 years or so) by Black Republicans referring to the efforts of Democrats to get the Black vote; (of course, those efforts often incurred violence – however, we just want to talk to folks.)

A Letter in responce to critics of the urban movement Hip-Hop
Republcans


Dear Ms. Brooklyne Gipson,

I’m not Michael Steele. You wrote a letter addressed to him, but due to some of the elements in it – particularly a tinge of discouragement and disgust on the part of Black Republicans and Hip Hop Republicans – I felt that it spoke to me, too. It compelled me to reply to some of the arguments you make. I hope that you understand this perspective instead of viewing my response as one made by some Republican lackey putting up for “the Man.”

I read your letter during “The State of the Black Union” weekend in Los Angeles. I read some of the statements you made about Mr. Steele’s apparent disingenuousness in expressing his Blackness and attempts to engage Black people with the Republican Party. Yet, there he sat alongside the Rev. Al Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson (two Democrats that ran for the presidency of the United States), speaking on a panel due to his concern for the Black community instead of being there Saturday for CPAC in Washington, DC.

I felt that rather than writing an article, perhaps I could talk to some of the points that I felt were off-mark by you.

As Tavis Smiley said throughout SOBU weekend, please know that I do this out of love.

You discourage Mr. Steele from reaching out to the Hip Hop community, saying that it amounts to a waste of time, money, and energy. You say that despite any efforts to build bridges of commonality between Black and urban people of diverse backgrounds, the younger generations in America (18-29 years of age and 30-45 years of age) will not be swayed by the Republican Party. Funny, because historically, this argument was made repeatedly for a period of time (roughly 80 years or so) by Black Republicans referring to the efforts of Democrats to get the Black vote; (of course, those efforts often incurred violence – however, we just want to talk to folks.) I know that times have changed, but by discouraging the GOP from being competitive and sincere enough to engage the Hip Hop community, you are asking a community facing despair, disillusionment, and death at alarming rates to fight a social Mike Tyson with one political arm tied behind its back. That is an irresponsible sentiment to express towards a community we love.

You say that the Hip Hop community is not up for grabs. I disagree. Every year brings with it accountability for all politicians. Chairman Steele’s efforts are more than about President Barack Obama. It’s about Baltimore and Boston, Oakland and Orlando. Each election matters. Without competitive elections, we stagnate the political responsiveness of our governments to us. For example, many of our urban centers have been void of meaning Republican local leadership for years now, yet they face epidemic situations nonetheless.

Further, if we lazily embrace the notion that a group of people thinks and acts in-step on 100% of the issues, are we not contravening the message of Dr. King to judge by the merits of character, not the color of one’s skin (or the age and address on one’s license)? In spite of the stereotyping, there is diversity even within the Hip Hop community – a diversity that should be celebrated and engaged by all, including one of the two most powerful political parties in the country. By encouraging exclusion, you limit political effectiveness. Isn’t that what the Klan did, in essence?

I know that you may see this outreach as rousing up trouble within the Black community. I know that history also shows that when folks rouse up the status quo to benefit the people, society and justice mature in power as a result. I remember older Black leaders telling folks such as Dr. King, Malcolm X, and Muhammad Ali that they were rousing up trouble for everyone unnecessarily during the 1950s and 1960s. Of course, the folks saying that couldn’t initially envision Black people sitting in the front of public transportation during their lifetimes, either, probably in the same way that many today couldn’t imagine a Black president and Black chair of the RNC in our lifetimes just 24 months ago.


The Black community was not solidly behind President Obama the whole time, either. During SOBU 2009, Dr. Michael Eric Dyson eloquently pointed out several times that there was a rift in Black America between President Obama and the wife of “the first Black president” Mrs. Hillary Clinton. There was concern that a biracial man with an African father and an upbringing in Hawaii couldn’t be “Black enough” for urban America. Perhaps both of us never quite bought into that, but others did. It’s not a coincidence that support for Mr. Obama dovetailed with the sunset of Mrs. Clinton as a candidate and the introduction of Mrs. Palin as a nominee, although neither fact takes away from Mr. Obama’s brilliance as a campaigner or as a statesman.


Unfortunately, you state the Hip Hop slang “keep it real” without honoring that sentiment. You say that the Hip Hop community only respects originality and authenticity; (I could go into the repeated false images of misogyny and glamorized drug life coming from “Hip Hop leaders” in the media, but we can digress down that path another time.) Is it “keeping it real” for the Black community (or the Hip Hop community) to embrace Mr. Obama as a source of Black pride while lauding leaders such as Steele, Rice, and Powell based on political affiliation alone, turning a blind eye to racist caricatures of “Mammy Rice” and Oreo-tossing incidents that they endure? Is it right to assume that one Black man’s success is solely predicated on the desires of someone to bring another Black man down? Is it pandering down as a race-baiting token when a Black person breaks down walls to re-engage the Black community in a more relevant fashion, especially as demographics in America continue to become more urban and more ethnic? I can assure you that every time someone from the Hip Hop community calls Michael Steele a token, there are others that call him five times worse than that for trying to empower others with a voice within the GOP.


You’re right, Ms. Gipson: the Hip Hop and Black communities do not automatically mean that both are “cool” and “hip”, nor does being Black ensure someone that all Black people will embrace him. However, both communities are worthy of inclusion in all aspects of America, a reality that extends to the political spectrum as well. At this critical time in our nation’s history, it would be irresponsible not to re-engage all communities to get “all hands on deck” to bring about the best solutions possible. I know that it may seem strange to hear a Black attorney in Washington not named Obama actively and sincerely seek to engage a new type of American voter – one that is younger, hipper, and more urban. Just know that President Obama is not the only way of trying to bring “Change We Can Believe In,” even if the old school thinks that it’s just someone rousing up things unnecessarily.

Please take my call for openness into consideration.

Power to the people - TCNGB

~Lenny McAllister is a national political commentator and an occasional co-host of “Fox News Rising” in Charlotte, North Carolina. McAllister is a Visiting Fellow at the Center for New Politics and Policy at the University of Denver. His website can be found at www.lennymcallister.com

The Goldwater Mirage

By Dennis Sanders

David Frum has an excellent essay on the "Goldwater Myth." He explains the myth this way:

In 1964, after years of watered down politics, Republicans turned to a true conservative, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. Yes, Goldwater lost badly. But in losing, he bequeathed conservatives a national organization – and a new champion, Ronald Reagan. Goldwater’s defeat opened the way to Reagan’s ultimate triumph and the conservative ascendancy of the 1980s and 1990s.

This (the myth continues) is the history we need to repeat. If we can just find the right messenger in 2012, the message that worked for Reagan will work again. And even if we cannot find the right messenger, losing on principle in 2012 will open the way to a more glorious victory in 2016.

Frum thinks this myth, will complicate or block any reform that should take place within American conservatism. In essence, it gives justifies the GOP to nominate someone who might be considered a "true conservative," but that is an all around terrible candidate. Maybe someone like Sarah Palin, who happens to lead the pack for the likely 2012 candidates for the Republican nomination. The end result would be a further damaged GOP and a stronger and seemingly invincible Democratic party.

Frum explains what really happened in 1964:

What happened in 1964 was an unredeemed and unmitigated catastrophe for Republicans and conservatives. The success that followed 16 years later was a matter of happenstance, not of strategy. That’s the real lesson of 1964, and it is the lesson that conservatives need most to take to heart today.

1964 was always bound to be a Democratic year. The difference between Barry Goldwater’s 38.5% candidacy and the 44% or 45% that might have been won by a Nelson Rockefeller or a William Scranton was the effect on down-ballot races.

Republicans lost 36 seats in the House of Representatives in 1964, giving Democrats the biggest majority in the House any party has enjoyed since the end of World War II. Republicans dropped 2 seats in the Senate, yielding a Democratic majority of 68-32, again the most lopsided standing in any election from the war to the present day.

This huge congressional majority - call it the Goldwater majority - liberated President Johnson from any dependence on conservative southern Democrats. In 1964, only 46 Senate Democrats voted for the great Civil Rights Act; 21 opposed. Without Republican support, the Act would not have passed. (And indeed while 68% of Senate Democrats voted for the Act, 81% of Senate Republicans did.)

While dependent on southern Democrats, President Johnson had to develop a careful, pragmatic domestic agenda that balanced zigs to the right (in 1964, Congress passed the first across the board income tax cut since the 1920s) with zags to the left (the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 which created Head Start among other less successful programs).

Then came the Republican debacle of November 1964. Goldwater's overwhelming defeat invited a tsunami of liberal activism. The 89th Congress elected in 1964 enacted both Medicaid and Medicare. It passed a new immigration law, opening the way to a surge of 40 million newcomers, the overwhelming majority of them from poor Third World countries. It dramatically expanded welfare eligibility and other anti-poverty programs that together transformed the urban poor of the 1950s into the urban underclass of the 1970s and 1980s.


So, the disaster that was 1964 led to a liberalism that was unchecked and created policy that were disasters. Frum notes that if Goldwater had not been the Republican nominee in '64, but it was some less "pure" like a Nelson Rockefeller, the GOP would have still loss the White House, but they might have held on their numbers in Congress, which might have result in legislation that was not as wildly liberal.

In closing Frum says that the GOP needs to nominate someone that can appeal to the whole country. I think that is his way of saying, they need someone that can do more than excite the base or represent "happy meal conservatism." The reason, being that they need a strong candidate at the top who can help the Republicans win down ballot:


As the next presidential cycle begins, our priority should be to identify presidential candidates who can run strongly in every region of the country – not because we expect to win every region of the country, but because we want to help elect Republican congressional candidates in every region of the country. Our present strategy is one that is paving the way not merely to another defeat at the presidential level, but to a further shriveling of our congressional party –and an utterly unconstrained Obama second term that will make LBJ’s ascendancy look moderate and humble in comparison.

That is something that the GOP needs to consider as we prepare for 2012. As we can see, Obama is not leading as the moderate that he presented himself to be; he is running to the left. The GOP can either find a candidate that will present an alternative vision of governing, one that can appeal to moderates and independents and call also help candidates in congressional races, or they can look for a conservative "savior" who will lose spectacularly and give Obama and the Democrats a stronger majority that will make what is going on now seem like a picnic.

~Dennis Sanders a pastor living in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He has worked on centrist Republican issues for years, including stints as President of the Minnesota chapter of Log Cabin Republicans (a gay/lesbian advocacy group) and Republicans for Environmental Protection. Dennis blogs at NeoMugwump and happily lives with his partner Daniel and serves two cats, Morris and Felix.

Obama’s Stimulus Sham!

Dr. Ada M. Fisher

Though people try to pin a lot of the present economic mess on President Bush, he ain’t guilty on a lot of it. Does anyone remember Ross Perot saying of NAFTA I can hear that sucking sound going south if Clinton passes this as he did? NAFTA or “Shafta” as I called it is entangled in this amorphous thing call free trade. In many respects trade, which is not fair gives away our competitive advantages, can indeed compromises environmental quality and worker standards regardless of what folks purports, but such deals do meet the bottom line of unfettered profits as well as the quest for cheap labor.

As Hardy said to Laurel , another fine mess you’ve got us into. It seems few have read the proposed Obama/Pelosi/Reid Stimulus package(s) which lays out spending the likes of which we have never seen, government socialization of banking with the automotive businesses to follow, nationalize health care with the computer based records system which will allow the government access to all your health information [even though Obama, Palin and Biden wouldn’t release theirs], and forestalls doing the real work of infrastructure repairs until its time to vote again for our representatives.

Obama is trying to ram this spending bill of pork and earmarks through before the American public wakes up. Thankfully some commentators have read it. There should be no vote on the economic stimulus plan until Treasury Secretary Geitner rolls out the next plan for banks which reportedly exceeds an additional $800 billion. With the call for Paul Volker to head the economic advisors, a car czar and all these other political appointee paybacks to head things many had a hand in, one can only ask who is in charge or who’s on first? One thing is for certain, it is not the citizens and our pocketbooks.

If you want to create jobs that will benefit all of our citizens why not provide":

-A small business stimulus to eliminate taxes for one year, halve the rate the following year and equalize them with the corporate rate. It is small businesses which create over 50 percent of the jobs in America. Allow small businesses to buy medical insurance as a collective and not subject those with less than five employees to benefits requirements. [probably less than 100 billion]

-Expand the US Coast Guard and Public Health Departments by 100,000 to ensure emergency response capability in every county in the USA and baseline access to health services such as immunizations and screenings which would include mental health services. [less than 100 billion]

-Build “the wall” to slow the flow of illegal immigrants as the level of gangs in California and Texas demonstrates we are about to lose control of our borders if we don’t do things differently. [less than 100 billion]

-Offer one billion dollars to every state for infrastructure repairs on federal roads, bridges, and highways with priority going to those projects which are already shovel ready. [50 billion]

-Give no more money to banks, but allow homeowners mortgage relief from those who already took money with a half payment holiday for one year and the balance tacked on to the last loan payment. [those whom already gave the banks the money]


And since we are in such a generous mood, give each taxpayer $5000 tax free to spend as they’d like.

All of this would cost less than the $800 billion, which even the Congressional Management Office of the Budget says present bills would and these simple measures would stimulate the economy and create thousands of jobs.

Dr. Ada M. Fisher is a phyisian, educator as well as The NC Republican National Committeewoman. Contact her at P. O. Box 777 ; Salisbury , NC 28145 DrFisher@DrAdaMFisher.org

Steele’s Victory Was a Victory for All Urban Conservatives

By Darvio Morrow

As I sit and write this article while listening to the 2Pac song, “Never Had a Friend Like Me” in an Ecko sweatshirt and baggy black jeans, I feel a little different about the Republican Party. I’ve been a conservative for pretty much all of my life, but I never quite felt like the brass of the party was accepting to people like me. It has always seemed like some of us were a little too “urban” for many of their tastes. But in a strange way, it doesn’t feel like that anymore.

I feel that we urban conservative “Hip-Hop Republicans” finally have a place at the grown-ups table. It doesn’t seem like this is the same party that it was before the election of Lt. Governor Michael Steele to the Chairmanship of the RNC. Many people who are young rap-loving conservatives have been made to feel like they do not belong in the GOP by not only our numerous Democrat peers but also by some even in our own party. Many Urban Conservatives were seen as “too moderate” because many of them don’t tow the line on every single issue. Urban Conservatives have fought with many in their state and county GOP chapters, demanding that they pay more attention to their community, to no avail. But now, all of that appears to be on its way to the graveyard.

Michael Steele’s election was a victory on many grounds. First, it was a historic moment for the GOP. With the combination of Steele, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Congressman Joseph Cao and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the image of the GOP as a “white men only” country club is beginning to die a slow death. Regardless of how “post-racial” many of us conservatives attempt to be, no one can deny that having an African-American in charge of the RNC is a tremendous accomplishment and it does wonders for creating good will in the minority community. Plus, anyone that can make David Duke angry is a winner in my book.

More important than the boost to the GOP’s racial imaging is the philosophy of the man himself. Michael Steele is a conservative but it would be fair to say that he is more moderate leaning than many of our former leaders. He is conservative enough to keep most hard-liners happy but is moderate enough to lure the Northeast back to the GOP. Chairman Steele can make the GOP a “big tent” again.

But above all else, Michael Steele’s background, experiences and political positions on certain issues make him a clear Urban Conservative. Michael Steele’s example exemplifies the fact that being authentically “black” and unwaveringly conservative are not mutually exclusive. Chairman Steele is a great example of how to be a conservative and simultaneously maintain your street credibility. For many years the prototype of an African-American Republican was the character of Carlton Banks from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, a corny, out of touch, money-loving conservative with “no hood in him”. Now the Black Conservative prototype is Chairman Steele. He is intelligent, articulate and if you doubt his “blackness”, I dare you to test him and you’ll see how “black” he is.

Chairman Steele’s victory was not only a victory for the GOP, but it was a victory for people like me. As Chairman Steele forms his transition team and signifies drastic changes that are in store for the Republican Party, I finally feel like I belong here. Today is a new day and now I won’t feel so strange writing conservative articles in urban clothes while listening to Hip-Hop music.

~Darvio Morrow is a student at the University of Phoenix and the founder/President of First Class Broadcasting. He has written articles for Associated Content, Back Talk Magazine and SexyWithin.com

"Presidential Potential"

Just as athletes hit the pros with a dual reality of potential and inexperience, our 44th president moves into the White House with similar traits but with a lot more on the line.

By Lenny McAllister

In the top round of last year's draft, the United States of America selected talented Barack Obama. The former senator from Illinois used the last 2 months to prepare to quarterback the most prestigious franchise on the globe. Last Tuesday, the overall number one pick stood center stage as he began leading his team to the Promised Land.

Sounds like your favorite sports team? Just as athletes hit the pros with a dual reality of potential and inexperience, our 44th president moves into the White House with similar traits but with a lot more on the line.

Franchise picks are expected to reverse the fortunes of struggling organizations with their unique talents and charisma. We expect them to sell out stadiums and instill confidence into the fan base. Most importantly, we need them to create wins - early, often, and consistently. Politically speaking, Obama must do the same for our country.


However, Barry Franchise has already made rookie mistakes since moving into the White House. He became the first Black president of the United States at noon on January 20th, and by 1 PM, he became the third president that decided to redo his presidential oath because of stumbling while on the world stage. He signed an executive order to fund international abortion services with federal tax dollars at a time when America is in deep economic crisis, only to rescind his executive order when soundly criticized for the move. And then there's the order to close Guantanamo Bay within a year amid speculation that solid plans on what to do with the detainees are far from complete.

To paraphrase Peyton Manning, even top-flight quarterbacks with laser, rocket arms - or, in politics, eloquence and charisma - still fumble the ball, misread defenses, and throw interceptions as rookies. President Obama is no different, except for one point. There is not a 2 year plan to slowly acclimate this new leader. We have a critical need for change right now. That change we can believe in must now involve less talk of hope and more actual wins because January 20th signaled "game on" for us all.

Lenny McAllister-lives in the Charlotte, North Carolina metropolitan area. Before graduating from prestigious Davidson College (NC), Lenny played a role in aiding the long process of procuring nationally- renowned Alpha Phi Alpha as the first historically Black fraternity established on the College’s campus. McAllister was featured as a political commentator and writer during the Republican National Convention for several national and international outlets including CNN, CNN International, BBC World News, and Black Entertainment Television. In addition, McAllister was a guest host on the Fox News primetime webcast with Shepard Smith before Gov. Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech and a featured guest on “ABC News NOW” with Sam Donaldson in primetime before Senator John McCain’s acceptance speech.