.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Friday, March 31, 2006

Painting The Map Red: A Review Of Hugh's New Book

Yes, I've cited it recently. I finished the book yesterday after a week of trying to pound my way through it. Normally, reading a book in the quickest amount of time isn't a problem for me. But it is sort of difficult when I'm at work, and at home blogging. Reading fills in the gaps that aren't otherwise already spoken for. But yes, "Emperor" Hughus Hewittus has written a new book. Out on store shelves now is Painting The Map Red: The Fight To Create A Permanent Republican Majority. Generalissimo Duane is currently running a contest for the best photoshop entries regarding his book, and where it's being read. You can view those entries here.

If I may be so bold, this book is a must-have within anyone's library if they truly feel that it's time the GOP step up, and seize the moment that's been handed to them. In 1994, the Gingrich Revolution tore control of the House away from Democrats for the first time in decades. In 2000, had it not been for "Jumpin'" Jim Jeffords, the GOP would have had control of the Senate. In 2002, we corrected that mistake, and made more gains in 2004, including the ouster of Tom Daschle by John Thune. Put succintly, the GOP's base understood the cause being fought by their representatives against obstructionist Democrats.

But, that idea--creating and maintaining a majority--is in jeopardy. Interneccine fights within the party has dragged us into a fight where the important things are tossed to the wayside so we can sit and argue over things like Harriet Miers and the Dubai Ports deal. That's not the way to go. Tearing ourselves apart over petty things will not gain us anything. And Hugh makes this apparent more than anyone else has; he sees such inter-fighting as weakening the party, not strengthening it.

In Chapter Two, Hugh answers, in a straight-forward way, the question of how big the GOP's tent is. To the chagrin of much of the GOP's base, these do include RINOs that I have been railing against. And while I still dislike them, I see the logic of his argument. People like Mike DeWine, John McCain, and Olympia Snowe all tend to have that sort of "maverick" attitude, but when the vote counts, they generally side with the party. They're right on issues more than 70% of the time. And while some of their antics (McCain with his torture legislation and immigration bill comes to mind) are irritating, the GOP still needs them. Why? Because part of our base is center-right. That's what those people are, and until someone comes along that is better than them, they should stay. The lone exception? Lincoln Chafee. Chafee is someone that Hugh specifically cites, and with good reason. Chafee couldn't find his @$$ with both hands in broad daylight. He is too often wrong, and his interference in certain things (Gang of 14 deal, anyone?) is considerably more detrimental to the GOP than any of the other RINOs. Hugh even states the drastic: If Chafee wins the primary, contribute to the Democrat so Chafee loses. That's harsh, and I'm reluctant to agree, but I'd rather have someone sitting in that seat I can depend on--I know, for the most part, how a Democrat's going to vote--than have someone in that seat who practically flips a coin on every little decision he makes.

Chapters Three through Seven all deal with the GOP's message. The GOP has to get it's act together when it comes to spending. This was more traditionally a Democrat tactic, and while we are at war now which has increased our spending, there is simply too much pork running around Congress. Certain projects, while they might be beneficial, they are irrelevant until this war is over. The pork projects sent back home are nice perks for the voters, but in the end the voters have put their faith in this party to win a war. Part of winning that is a control of the spending unless it is for national security or the military. It's that simple. Yes, other projects have their niche in the budget, but even a few of those need to have cuts made in them.

As stated, we are at war. We are at war against radical Islamofascists who want us destroyed or dead. We're the infidels, remember? And what the GOP needs to point out is that their opponents have forgotten. They've forgotten which is why they're issuing calls for a "redeployment" of our troops. That equals cut-and-run, for all those not keeping score. That's a mistake, and it's got to be driven home by the GOP when they're campaigning this year. They have also declared war on our faith. They have done everything they can to help the causes of removing religious displays in public. And where some people point to nutters on our side, like Falwell and Roberston, we have to acknowledge that. But we also have to point to their nutters, like Moore, Dean, Newdow , and the ACLU. These people have publicly disdained religion, and are doing their best to remove it. Newdow's newest appeal heading towards the Supreme Court is going to force the high court to rule--should they choose to accept it--whether or not "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates anyone's Constitutional rights. Yes, this is what we need. During a time of war, the one thing that many of these soldiers look to for strength--their faith--is being attacked by moonbats at home.

Another aspect of our beliefs that are under assault is the definition of marriage. The Democrats, while not openly endorsing it, are slowly pushing homosexual marriage for the nation. And this is what Hugh has to say about it, which I consider this to be a most important passage in the book:

"As we enter the election season, it is impossible to predict the timing of new developments in the legal battles over same-sex marriage, DOMA*, the state constitutional amendments, the proposed federal amendment, or the variety of positions that high profile politicians of both parties might take. But this much is clear: nearly all of the support for same-sex marriage is on the left, nearly all the opposition is on the right. It is not just a "wedsge issue." Same-sex marriage is a cleaver issue for two reasons."

"The first argument concerns the morality of same-sex relationships, and the outlines of that argument are so familiar as to bore. Either one believes sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is sinful and wrong, or one doesn't. There is very little a book of this sort, or any book for that matter, can say to change many opinions on the subject, and I have no intetion of trying."

"But the second debate around same-sex marriage is a very crucial issue that needs to be argued out in public, in the most civil of conditions, no matter what the left says about the motives of the center-right."

"Not once, in all the years since the United States Constitution was ratified in 1789, has any state legislture passed and governor signed a single law opening the institution of marriage to two individuals of the same sex."

"Not once."

And the GOP, to stay true to it's conservative roots, must stand against the act. Anytime it's asked, simply return with "I don't believe in that." The institution of marriage is a sacred one; one in which I wish the government was out of. But, as long as they're involved, then I'd like them to respect the roots of the institution. Those roots are one man and one woman, and Hugh is right to state the GOP needs to get out in front of this issue, and force the Democrats to debate it. Openly. The people need to see where the Democrats stand.

But this is one of the reasons why Hugh brings up the judiciary. Michael Newdow, avowed atheist and despiser of the words "under God" has another case heading up the chain. This time, if the Supreme Court takes it, it won't be able to side-step it like they did the last time. They ruled he couldn't bring the suit because he wasn't the custodial parent. They just opted not to rule on his argument at all. But, if we want a federal judiciary that agrees with his legal illogicalness, then the Democrats are the ones we want to pass and fail these nominees. They want a federal judiciary that believes in a "living, breathing Constitution;" one that can easily conform to societies whims. That's not the Constitution I believe in. Like Justice Scalai, I prefer my Constitution dead, and so does a fair majority of the country. The "dead" meaning as the Constitution was written. The agenda the Democrats can't get passed through Congress or through the states, they want "passed" at the judicial level; this is wrong. We only need to reference what the Democrats are willing to go through to stop nominees who believe in interpreting the Constitution that way. We saw it with John Roberts, and we saw it in Sam Alito. William Pryor's nomination hearings were a nightmare as Democrats invoked an illegal test against him regarding his faith; this is explicitly forbidden under Article VI of the Constitution. Those are the levels the Democrats are willing to stoop to, and the GOP needs to call them on it. Call them on it, and call them out.

Hugh also brings up the blogs in his book. Now, whether you're a blogger or not, whether you like them or not, blogs are here to stay for awhile. We're not going anywhere, and unlike the MSM's claims to the contrary, we're not in our twilight years. We're just beginning, and unlike the MSM, and the port-side blogosphere, our pipes are running just fine. That's the allusion made. The extreme elements among the Democrat Party have risen up against their leaders, ousted them, and put in place a person that they can relate to. That's the moonbat fringe, and "Howling Mad" Howie Dean, and they're just oozing the vitriol out. As a matter of fact, their pipes are made of lead. They're rusting a corroding the information flows within the blogosphere. Because of their poison, a civil debate is hard to come by. The center-right blogosphere is fine. It's working, and at a rate much quicker than it's port-side compatriot. Our pipes are copper, far sturdier than the moonbat's network. Our arguments are far more constructive, and the issues we address are more pressing than "I hate Bush/I hate Republicans." The public doesn't want to hear that over and over again. They want solutions. They want ideas. The GOP's advantage is the center-right blogosphere. We have already done much for the party in terms of driving the debate, and being active in the process. Our port-side cousins haven't fared so well, as 2004 showed plainly. The amount of money by Democrat activists tied up into Internet campaigning (from MoveOn.org, to DemocraticUnderground, to any other radical special interest group) was astounding, and utterly fruitless. The president won his reelection, and the GOP gained seats in the House and Senate. It's because they poisoned the debate, and it turned people off. We can't go that way, but the center-right blogosphere can provide for the free-flow of sound, reasoned, and verified information for the coming elections.

Overall, this book is awesome. The roadmap it lays out doesn't just affect us for 2006. This applies to 2008, 2010, 2012, etc. It's the conservative ideals for the 21st Century, which don't differ much from those of the late 20th Century. It is an extremely thought-provoking book, where even I found myself questioning a few things about where I stand on the conservative spectrum. But the most important lesson to be learned from this book:

"There's a continued urgency in Republican politics. Most GOP primary voters know that we are in a war for our very lives and continued existence as a country. They know that if one of our Islamist enemies obtains the ability to nuke an American city, they will not hesitate to do so. They also know that the Democratic Party does not grasp this urgent reality."

"The GOP primary voters know the stakes, then, and I think are thus uncoupled from their traditional, almost impossible to overcome habits of nominating the most conservative candidate capable of winning. But I don't think they've abandoned the loyalty test, which is why the trio of senators, and maybe a fourth in Nebraska's Chuck Hagel, hurt themselves by appearing to be other than rock-solid supporters of the White house on the GWOT."

"There's good reason for this. Loyalty to party is a good indication of reliability in judgment and predictability in response. The willingness to hang with a party through thick and thin, with its nominees and its leadership, communicates judgment, maturity, predictability, and stability."

We know that this year won't be easy. We're in just as much of a make-or-break election cycle as the Democrats are. The difference is the Democrats have a longer road to hoe. They have to take back the House and/or the Senate to stay alive. A loss in either isn't good, and a loss in both would be devastating. But we have a lot to prove, too, and it's not any easier for us. If the GOP really wants to win this year, and maintain a plan that will ensure a majority for years to come, this is literally the map to follow. I recommend the book for anyone interested in the coming election cycles, and what the GOP must do to win. And if I had the money, I'd send a copy of this book to every GOP campaign manager across the nation with one simple instruction attached.

Read it, and win.

Publius II


Post a Comment

<< Home

weight loss product