Yowzers!

Man alive! I haven't had so many compliments fly at me so fast since the last time Ang and I ....

At any rate, I hope by my last few posts I have officially established my "non-partisan" bonifides once and for all. In as much that "partisan" is defined as loyalty to a Party. I am NOT, any longer, loyal to the Republican Party as it stands today. I even considered switching to "Independent", so as to demonstrate to the GOP that conservatives are feeling less and less represented. Its a mostly symbolic gesture, I know, given I will still vote for their candidate - BUT - that's only because he is running against a flat out socialist! A Phyrric Victory for the GOP if there ever was one.

You know the amazing thing here? Here you have intellectuals like ourselves, A.M. talk radio, and the overwhelming number of American voters from the 1980's (presumably a great number still kicking around today) all clearly pointing to Reagan as the type of direction we would like our president to lead in. Yet NO ONE in the entire political landscape, on a level to seriously be considered a presidential contender, has stepped up and assumed the Reagan model, i.e. authentic conservatism. Why is that? It clearly worked. And I'm not talking about enacting the "exact" same policies, but operating off of the exact same principles. I mean here is a blue print for economic AND political success, and Mac says, "no thanks." Bush 43, "no thanks." Bush 41, "no thanks" (and he was his VP for crying out loud!). And I could say the same to the UK about Margaret Thatcher. They haven't reproduced another Iron Lady either.

And what is most troubling, as I pointed out and Titus reaffirmed, authentic conservatism as practiced in the 80's, in my ("our") opinion, is the ONLY answer to curbing these problematic trends. Yet Reagan's name is invoked by men whose policies he would have never supported (Mac) as if merely saying his name along side your policy makes the thing "Reaganesque." It does not.

Which brings me to an interesting question: if we agree that such a leader is needed, and one clearly isn't "on the scene" now, which victory come November has the better chance of producing an authentic conservative more rapidly? If Mac wins, we won't get him in 2012. If he wins then we may get "her" in 2016, but that's assuming she bucks her former boss (not to mention wins) during the election year. Not bloody likely. Oddly enough the election of a rabid socialist of the European model may be the quickest route to producing an authentic US conservative in 2012 ... just a thought.

(and if "Carl" Obama does win, Bobby Jindal, you should start making speeches around the country at about 7 a.m. on 11/5/08!)