France has been a traditional, and traditionally suspicious, ally of the United States. We have defended them in two world wars and were allied on the good side of the Iron Curtain. Yet, the two revolutions that spawned the modern era of each country were fundamentally opposed. The United States revolted in the direction of personal responsibility, while France revolted in the direction of personal autonomy. The former seemed more oriented around English deism and theism, while the latter seemed more oriented around the Enlightenment. One revered to Locke--the father of natural rights; the other revered Rousseau--the father of many illegitimate and abandoned children.

In today's election of Sarkozy, France realized that there was more in common with the United States than they had previously realized. Both countries have the burden of conflict with a hate-mongering ideology in radical Islam, while coping at home with the hate-mongering ideology of national self-loathing.

Both France and the U.S. would be well served to quickly work together and show one another support in this era of demoralization. This will require compromise. On the heels of Sarkozy's plea that the U.S. modify its environmental position, we should happily oblige. We may compromise without losing face or appeasing the global warming alarmists by renewing our investment in alternative energy sources. By making a mutual pledge with the French to pour more resources into alternative energy, we may each take a step forward in diminishing our dependence upon our enemies for power and consequently, appear more environmentally-conscious. Thus, the free market in the U.S. will not suffer from more extensive regulations, but will be willingly compelled to turn its competitive impulses toward alternative energy, with more environmentally-sound results as its natural end.

There are no Ronald Reagan types running for President in '08. As soon as we face that reality, we will be able to gauge the strengths and weaknesses of the various contenders in the Republican field without getting that wistful look in our eyes. There will be no misguided optimism nor undue cynicism.

That said, I find myself befuddled as to who I will support in the Republican primaries. At the cusp of reaching voting age in 2000, I supported Alan Keyes on principle, and later supported George W. Bush. My political preferences have become more mature and nuanced in the time since, and require careful consideration of each candidate on a variety of fronts.

First, on a very superficial level, I would like to announce my distaste for all southeastern Republican candidates. I am tired of having my party represented by those who make easy targets for good ol' boy accusations and Christianized conspiracies. That sentiment (as shallow as it is) immediately puts Huckabee, Brownback (as our token Baueresque candidate), and potentially Fred Thompson on the chopping block.

Second, I don't think it wise to support little-known, outspoken candidates from the House of Representatives who are defined by single issues: Goodbye Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo.

Third, the pair of former governors from Wisconsin and Virginia are both very competent, but still lacking in their ability to generate widespread public appeal: See ya Thompson and Gilmore.

Don't get me started on Newt.

Finally, my field is whittled to the three that everyone is hyping as the top-tier contenders: Giuliani, McCain, and Romney. Remembering Martin Luther's wide saying that he'd rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a boneheaded Christian (my paraphrase), I certainly won't make religion my litmus test.

Giuliani is an incredible manager--he recognizes problems, proposes innovative solutions, and sees them through. His ability to fight crime is unparalleled, and his renovation of New York City was astounding. While he would be great on the foreign policy and domestic-fiscal fronts, his social progressivism is a cause of great distress. I have long looked for unqualified remarks about nominating strict-constructionists to the bench, regardless of views. Instead, every comment about strict-constructionists seems to be matched by tepid endorsements of Roe v. Wade.

McCain is a political maverick--earning scorn from some and respect from others. His dogged determination with regard to Iraq is a remarkable display of principled courage. He also has a fairly conservative track record on most issues of concern to conservatives. While his temper could be a liability (I remember a tantrum he threw on the Michael Reagan show in 2000), he seems to be sober-minded in general.

Romney is a more unknown quality. Many might be turned off by his religious preferences and his recent turnaround on several issues of importance. As mentioned before, religion should not be a matter of utmost concern, especially if he shows himself capable to lead. His splendid work in changing the course of the Salt Lake City olympics deserves notice, and his ability to brave liberal firebrands in Massachusetts shows his mettle. With regard to his turnaround on issues like abortion--so what? If he displays a change of heart, even fairly recent, that is fine--as long as he lands on the right spot.

All three of these candidates have solid resumes and glaring weaknesses. Right now, I am leaning toward Romney as the most politically-pure candidate. That may change over time.

I dream of a charismatic Republican leader. Where is my man, Rick Santorum?   Oh yeah.

It's interesting how often elections transcend mere politics and reveal the very soul of a nation. Under the shadow of terrorism, the U.S. and Australia each reelected leaders who showed immense courage against their nations' enemies. After their infamous "3/11", Spain tossed out their popular president in favor of a socialist who made no qualms about withering under the terrorist threat.

The ball is now in France's court. They currently have a choice: the right-leaning Nicolas Sarkozy and the socialist Segolene Royal. The downtrodden Muslim community in France blame past riots on Sarkozy's insensitive remarks, and promise more violence if he is to be elected. Although France's politics du jour is socialism, they have intimate knowledge of the economic and political stagnancy that exists in their country because of their inept political system. The times demand a change, but the threats demand appeasement.

If France votes Royal, they will have capitulated to radical Islam. Such capitulation does not come without a price. When Chamberlain appeased the looming Reich, he gave needed time and legitimacy to a regime thirsty for blood and domination. If the radical Muslims in France are appeased, their threatening tactics will gain legitimacy and increase, their economic depression will continue under a rotten system of governance, and they will have time to brood and plan against an ever-weakening shadow of a former empire.

A recent report on Fox News indicated that the Army is hundreds of Chaplains short of their intended goal. Some probably wonder--Why would the Army be so concerned about recruiting a few more preachy, self-righteous, non-combatants?

Amidst the fog of war, I believe one thing becomes crystal clear: the need for answers. The false security of easy answers is quickly dismantled in times of crisis. Human effort is often needed and spent more on restraining evil than on building some sort of idealist utopia. The triumph of human reason is shown to be a more preemptive declaration than "Mission Accomplished." Human beings, with their inherent value, lose their individuality as they become statistics.

Into the void steps the military chaplain. He who truly receives the call of God to be a chaplain does not come bearing easy answers. He does not praise human effort or proclaim reason as the salvation of mankind. Tears for each person killed are not lost on the chaplain. Rather, he comes bearing the message of truth as an ambassador of the King. As the 18 year old dreamer of big dreams bleeds to death in a theater of battle, the chaplain offers words of life that are not his own.

In a time not too far in the future, I hope to wear the uniform of the U.S. Army. My rank may be Lieutenant, but my title will be Ambassador. I will share the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who have no use for easy answers and false hope. I will explain that there was one human being on this earth who was not enslaved to the evil and death of humanity, but was born of God to offer hope of salvation. This salvation is not the product of the work of man, but of the work of Jesus Christ. He lived the perfect life that sinful man cannot, and offered Himself as a sacrifice on behalf of those who believe in Him. As a result, by faith that He produces in sinful hearts, men who believe in Him are forgiven by His death, and are credited with His righteousness--that when God looks upon them, He sees the perfection of His Son representing them.

This is the message that must ring in the ears of every soldier--the message of life in Christ. May God equip this sinful messenger to do such work--with love, truth, and courage.

 Over the Christmas season, I became one of the few members of the young “Me Generation” who has taken an interest in the classic TV sitcom, MASH. In the course of viewing the series finale of the show, I learned that though I am now separated by several generations from the Korean and Vietnam Wars, their grim legacies live on. These wars, though justifiable in purpose (in my opinion), carried with them the horrific tragedies brought about by war—so aptly displayed by MASH.

It is one thing to see villages bombed from afar and tracers lighting up the night sky, but quite another to see an 18 year old boy on an operating table—recalling picturesque memories from his childhood and crying for the family of his lost youth—before the bullet lodged in his chest fulfills its purpose. A few years ago, my brother in the 82^nd Airborne was almost lost in Iraq. I didn’t fear for him at the time, but every time I see an 18 year old actor in a gurney, a lump forms in my throat.

Perhaps the most poignant moment of the MASH series finale was in a storyline crafted around the pompous New England blue-blood, Charles Winchester. For the viewer, this man typically served as an irritating comic foil to the more popular Hawkeye and Honeycutt. In this last episode, however, he showed such depth as to stir the soul. It begins with Charles listening to Mozart—his snooty escape de jour in the series. At several points while listening to his record, Charles was distracted by the incessant racket of Chinese POW’s playing their homemade instruments.

Having received enough of their distractions, Charles rushes outside and screams at them, telling them that he is listening to Mozart. The only word these POW’s recognize is “Mozart”, and they begin playing one of his classical pieces. At this display, Charles marvels and takes it upon himself to teach these talented men. After conducting these men through several rehearsals, Charles is dismayed by the announcement that these POW’s would be shipped out. His great sadness in losing them was at least assuaged in part by knowing that he had for a brief time found soul-mates in his hellish compound.

As Charles ran to receive the last batch of wounded ever to grace the tents of the 4077, he found the dying corpse of one of the instrumentalists. In utter shock, he asks about the others—none of whom had even survived as long as this poor soul before him. Dead. All of these men with whom he shared Mozart. After a few operations, Charles returned to his ascetic escape and began his record of Mozart. A few measures in, he picked up the record and smashed it to pieces. At a final toast before leaving Korea, Charles grimly announced that his love of music had become nothing but a source of pain.

Perhaps what is most often lost in the debates over the current war in Iraq is the humanity of its participants. While Rick and Bonnie enjoy a Sunday dinner at their home in Michigan, the son they prayed for in church that morning is gurgling out incoherent final words at a medical post in Fallujah. Meanwhile, the car bomb that went off just south of Baghdad—briefly reported on an American newscast—has ended the life of a bright, young student named Whalid, whose father Bashir will eat dinner alone tonight without his beloved son for the first time in 16 years.

Perhaps as we hear the cries of these bereaved parents, we will understand the cost of freedom. It is a price extracted in blood and tears from those who are naturally tight-fisted. If the war in Iraq in lost, it will amount to tens of thousands of meaningless deaths which resulted in a meaningless future for an entire Arab nation. If that occurs, may every piece of music carry for us the minor chord of pitiable, meaningless death.

Just one general reaction pertaining to the State of the Union and the Democratic response...

    Both speech and response focused on one obvious question: "What is the state of our country?" President Bush argued in the positive, citing primarily the economic growth that our country has experienced.  Senator Webb argued in the negative, citing the obvious case in Iraq, as well as attempting to prove that the economy is not faring as well as many think.

Is it just me, or do the Republicans and Democrats always seem to gravitate toward the poles of optimism and pessimism, respectively? 

Let's hope that those outlooks are reflective of inner dispositions as well. 

     How would you remedy the current situation in Iraq? That should be the question posed by the White House to those in Congress, particularly Republicans, who oppose the President's plan to increase the troop contingent in Iraq by 21,000. The "en vogue" position for Republicans right now is obviously to stand against the President on the War on Iraq, as more and more trickle toward their own fickle popularity.
    Yet, many of these Republicans speak out of both sides of their mouth. They oppose this plan, but they vigorously deplore any plan that might smack of a "cut and run" mentality. There seems to be a middle ground of quicksand consistency that is being staked out by Sens. Hagel, Warner, Snowe, etc. that advocates a status quo in a time when the status quo is failing miserably.
    To President Bush's credit, he has heeded the voices that advocate change amidst the dire circumstances in Iraq, and has totally changed his philosophical approach to military engagement. After several years of following the "lightfoot" strategy of Rumsfeld and several top generals, Bush is switching to the approach of  "everything en masse." 
    For incoherent independents like Sen. Hagel--pick a philosophy and stick to your guns! Principled independence loses its admirable character when your philosophy is "keep the guns ablazin'."   It takes a strong man to stand against the leader of his party; it takes a stronger man to stand alongside the leader when the leader changes his approach.

*(An added note on my last entry: I mentioned one drawback of the current Republican presidential field being found in the continued prominence of crusty old white guys who lack style. They will surely have a hard time against Clinton, Obama, and Edwards when competing for an electorate that tires of the status quo. Since that entry, a crusty old white guy (albeit conservative)--Brownback--has joined the Republican field, while the popular Hispanic governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, has joined the Democratic field. And the dispiriting trend continues...)

Giuliani? McCain? Romney?

The former two are well-known icons in American politics. Giuliani was a remarkable mayor who cleaned up a very...well...unremarkable city at the time. When that same city, with newfound pride, was struck and wounded by terrorists, Giuliani gave voice to their pain and gave heart to their hope. McCain was a former POW in Vietnam, and is known for sticking to his guns more than collaborating with his party. Finally, Romney provides a sleeper alternative to those two big names--he's a proven business manager (Salt Lake City Olympics) and proved himself successful in many regards in one of the most dreadfully blue states.

Yet, how do these men stand amongst conservatives?  More importantly, how do they stand in relation to the Democratic field? With regard to the first question, they are all questionable to say the least. McCain strongly opposes the right of private contributors to give as much money as they see fit to a given politician, and weakly opposes wave after wave of illegal immigrant who will likely not assimilate for decades. His standoffishness smacks more of stubborn independence than of deep-held principle. Giuliani may be even worse. His great work as executive of our largest city and his courage amidst crisis does not hide his liberal record on social issues. He's not even moderate on issues like gay marriage and abortion! Romney, unlike the other two, may vocalize positions which are more sound on conservative hot buttons across the board, but he's only arrived at those positions in the past few years! This man may now be sober-minded, but what if falls off the boat?

How do these men stand against the leading Democratic candidates? In polling, all of them are shown to be competitive in head-on races with Clinton, Obama, and Edwards (and in some cases, winning). Will this be the case on the final campaign trail with its series of debates and intense media coverage, though? When Hillary begins to shed crocodile tears in empathy toward the American people, will any of these men be able to show tangible sensitivity to the American people? When Edwards plays upon popular populist themes, will any of these men be able to strike a similar chord with the American people? When Obama, with warm and moderate tone, captivates the American people with his rhetoric, will any of these men be able to display comparable rhetorical prowess?

2008, like 2006, will be a year in which change is sought. Its possible this change will be pursued less upon ideological lines than upon visionary lines. Will people tired of the status quo support old white men with accompolished resumes but tired rhetoric? Or will they turn to the fresh perspective of a woman, warm rhetorician, or charismatic populist?

Its likely that conservatives will rally behind their Republican nominee, whoever he stands against. It is less likely, however, that independents will flock to the Republican side in a postmodern age that values style as much as substance. Where is the fresh young face with the golden voice amongst Republicans?

I remember where I was on September 11th...do you?

For many out there, I doubt it.  When it comes to foreign affairs, most Americans have a materially-induced amnesia.  On 9/11, these people cried, but they didn't ponder.  They didn't take time to meditate upon the ideologies of hate that gave rise to a horrendous massacre of innocent lives.  They didn't consider the long-term ramifications of engaging Islamo-fascism.

Yet, they cried.  They cried on simple humanitarian grounds--"Those people are dead, and that could have been me!"  Five years have passed, and the graves of 9/11 victims are now surely covered by brush.  Those graves might as well hold the national sympathy for the disaster as well.  It jarred our self-consumed lifestyles just enough to provoke a gaze outside of ourselves to the greater dilemmas and realities of this world.  Yet, just as quickly, the "coast is clear" call rang forth and we withdrew again into our holes.

Our holes stand protected, but not without sacrifice.  President Bush was serious when he pledged to honor the memory of the victims of 9/11.  Even now, if we listen just hard enough, we will hear the dull thuds of mortar shells.  At this moment, if we adjust our eyes just enough, we will see the quick flashes of explosions and the somber trails of smoke left behind them.

Where were you on September 11th?  Perhaps the question is no longer germane. 

Where are you now?  That is the question.  I fear that most of us are residing comfortably in our holes, awaiting the next September 11th to again draw our gaze outward.

What prompted the general shift of voter sentiment decisively toward the Democrats in the past election? While some arrogant and ignorant talking heads would chalk it up to a rejection of Reaganesque conservatism, there is absolutely no chance of that.

Why?  Because most elected Republicans believe in Reaganesque conservatism about as much as the know-it-all-know-nothing pundits.  While not necessarily compromised themselves (though I believe many are), most Republican leaders are walking tombstones--hailing the death of principled conservatism in the name of "open-minded" moderation.  Hastert, Boehner, Blunt and Co. are figureheads for a party that has chosen to make its stand on the shifty sands of public perception and media critique rather than the terra firma of principle.

Thus, I think a substantive argument could be made for  "status-quoism" being the death knell for Republican.  In our day, "stay the course" has virtually become synonymous with the status-quo.  If you have no plan, no ability to communicate, no ability to be creative, innovative, or persuasive--you thump the podium with the line "Stay the course!"

Republicans are tired of  "stay the course."  The American people are sick of  "stay the course."  That is why both decided not to stay the course and vote for Dems, Libertarians, or not vote at all.

Yet, today, in reelecting Boehner and Blunt, whatever their merits, Republicans spoke unequivocally to the American people that they will stay the course.  Little do they know that their course in away from principled conservatism and toward the craggy cliffs of demise and irrelevancy.

What were two of the biggest pet peeves regarding status quo government that led to this recent revolt against Republicans?

Excessive spending and corruption.

John McIntrye at RealClearPolitics noted the Republican direct electoral casualties of corruption in this recent election: One senate seat and six house seats. Public perception of corruption might have contributed to the defeat of other Republicans, but that would be tough to establish. The fact that Republicans did not clean house on the obviously dirty members of their party in the past several years is reprehensible.

In addition, Republicans have become notorious among some (especially fiscal conservatives) for their earmarks, such as "The Bridge to Nowhere." If Republicans are to energize this significant portion of their base in the near future, they must be seen as thoroughly reformed from their past misdeeds--much like the quintessential former alcholic turned successful entrepeneur.

How about a proposal to clear these blemishes from the Republican record?  What if Republicans and Democrats agreed to cap earmarks at a certain amount, and spend a small percentage of the savings to establish party-based task forces that investigate and out corrupt congressmen?

I imagine such a task force on either side of the aisle would be highly effective--driven by a desire to preserve party integrity before the American people rather than partisan witchhunts or bureacratic bumbling.

Or, I may simply be a naive, idealistic young conservative.

First, I apologize for the crass expression, but I find it fitting.

As I have made the case for before, there is a pattern in our government of principle being sacrificed on the altar of politics. Case in point--Joe Lieberman, a man of principle. While I don't agree with much of his political stances, he has always garnered the respect of many Republicans, including myself. He doesn't attack and attempt to personally humiliate opponents--he engages them in a way becoming of a Senator.

Yet, this Democratic giant who was a breath away from the White House a few years ago found himself tossed aside by his party because he had the audacity to part ways with them on one issue. Normally aligned with his party, he supported the Iraq war on principle. This earned him the betrayal of the party establishment.

Lieberman's reputation preceded him in Connecticut, however, and he just won reelection as an Indepedent. Although he will caucus with the Democratic Party, it brings me joy to know that his presence on Capitol Hill serves as a middle finger to those who would abandon principled politicians because of one area of departure.

Each party needs independent-minded politicians who will withstand political pressure in order to do what is right. It cost Santorum his job. It almost cost Lieberman his job. In both cases, what a shame.

I vigorously disagree with Sen. McCain on quite a few issues, but if he becomes the Republican candidate in '08, I will set aside my squabbles with him in order to support a man who will not buckle under public pressure. We need more politicians like these, as much as our pure ideology often bucks against this sentiment.

As Rich Lowry from NR continually said last night, this electoral defeat for Republicans could have a "cleansing effect."

Let us hope that these words are prophetic in the sense that they precipitate a battle on the Republican side of the aisle in Congress. For too long, lukewarm conservatism has dominated the Republican political landscape. Spending (not counting military expenditures) has been dramatically ramped up in support of programs of government largesse, such as "No Child Left Behind" and the Medicare benefit. In addition, earmarks have become as much a staple of DC in the last 6 years as Washington Redskin defeats.

It is time for Mike Pence and the rest of his caucus to wage war against the Republican leadership and cleanse out the tainted elements of the party that had soured the national appetite for Republicans. The Iraq War hurt Republicans, but the lack of a principled, conherant message from Congressional Republicans merely drove the sword deeper.

If we hope to compete on the 2008 battleground, we must purge the Republican wound of this "compromised conservatism" infection.

 I have been living and breathing Senate races over the last several months thanks to RealClearPolitics.com. Here are a few observations and predictions...

Pennsylvania--Santorum has long been out of the mainstream of PA politics, but has squeaked by for various reason in the past (principle? charisma?). Based on those intangibles, I think he'll only lose by 6-7%. DEM PICK UP.

Ohio--Anything Republican in the Ohio political scene this season will be crushed due to the corruption scandles of Taft and Ney. I'll go with the polling that has him losing 6-8%. DEM PICK UP.

Rhode Island--Chafee has largely closed the gap in the polling against Whitehouse, but his state is too blue for him to survive in this cycle. He'll go down by 2-4%. DEM PICK UP.

Montana--Burns had been struggling because of the Abramoff scandal for months, but has closed recently to a statistical dead heat. Due to the "red" composition of this state, I'll have Burns winning by 1-2%. REP HOLD.

Missouri--This is perhaps the hardest race to call with its consistent dead heat status over several months. It'll go down to the wire, but I think McCaskill will pull out this race with support for the stem-cell measure by 1-2%. DEM PICK UP.

Tennessee--Recent polling has shown Corker pulling ahead of Ford by a decent major. Consider the conservative composition of this state, I believe Corker will win by a healthy 6%. REP HOLD.

Virginia--Despite Allen's many blunders and a gradual "purpleing" of Virginia, I believe that the conservative tide in the south and western parts of the state will carry Allen to a victory over an opponent with perverted writings by 2-3%. REP HOLD.

New Jersey--This was a surprise pick for a while for a Rep Pick Up, but that prediction seems no longer valid with Menendez picking up steam in the polls. Obviously, corruption is not too large of a factor in this blue state. Menendez should win by 4-5%. DEM HOLD>

Maryland--I believe this will be the surprise pick up for Republicans in this election cycle. Anti-democratic sentiment amongst the significant black population in the state should carry Steele to a surprising 1-2% victory. REP PICK UP.

Michigan--I'm just mentioning this race because I believe it will be tighter than normally believe. Democratic Debbie will win, but only by 3-4% over Bouchard. DEM HOLD.



PREDICTION: The Democrats will pick up 4 seats, but that will be offset by a Republican pick up in MD, for a net gain for Democrats of 3 seats.

This coming Election Day, the Democratic tide will most likely sweep away the premier defender of conservative family values in the U.S. Senate, Rick Santorum. It will be a dark day for those who admire this man for his principled candor against all opposition.

In the wake of this defeat, however, we may find ourselves embracing a surprising victor--Michael Steele in Maryland. Michael Steele represents a new breed of politician--more beholden to principle than to party. He is more conservative than he is Republican. If he wins, he will carry the torch dropped by the hand of the brilliant Santorum.

Perhaps Steele has come to represent a new age of politics--one that does not scrutinize demographics, polling, and party politics, but one that embraces issues as the true battlegrounds. The people will not be pandered to by tawdry political tactics, but will be won on the battlefield of issues and ideas.

As the sun sets on the too-short senatorial career of Rick Santorum, let us hope it rises with a new resolve and Steele.