With 2007 barely begun, the 2008 Presidential race is already heating up. Every time I turn on the news, awash in stories of Presidential candidates, I get the urge to check my calendar to make sure we didn't skip a year. Not all of those who will run have announced their candidacy, and not all of those who have announced will still be under consideration a year from now. Perhaps this is the time, before things really get going, to consider what we should look for in a Conservative candidate. Personalities aside, what's really important is a candidate's stance on the issues we will continue to face during his or her tenure.

It's difficult to decide, since some people consider some issues more important than others. If a candidate is for X but against Y, is he equally acceptable as one who is for X and Y, but against Z? What's needed is some way for us each to "rank" issues in order of importance, so we can attempt to divine the acceptability of each candidate. Of course, that assumes every candidate is being honest about his or her position on each issue... and trusting the honesty of a politician is like trusting the dog not to eat your steak dinner while you're out. (Then again, dogs can be trained. I'm not so sure about politicians.) Perhaps the "conventional wisdom" that Senators and Representatives don't get elected to the highest office is due to the fact that so many change their positions in order to run. A voting record, such as one can find at Project VoteSmart or OnTheIssues, would actually be an asset for a candidate who is not misrepresenting his or her positions.

Tier 1 Issues: National security, Iraq/the War on Terror, judges and the border

The most important issues with which we will continue to deal for the foreseeable future are the War on Terror, the battle in Iraq, and border control (an essential part of national security). Anyone who aspires to be President of the United States must be aggressive on offense and tough on defense. The candidate should be perfectly willing to listen to phone calls made by (or to) known terrorists without asking permission, as an essential part of intelligence gathering. He must be ready to interrogate captured enemies aggressively, even if the New York Times says bad things about him. He has to face the fact that we are a nation at war.

President Bush seems to have finally gotten the message that our military must be allowed to take the fight to the enemy in Iraq, instead of trying to win hearts and minds while terrorist bombs are exploding in marketplaces on a daily basis. His successor should be inclined to continue that policy. Running away -- abandoning our allies and our responsibilities -- is not an option. If we allow Iraq's fledgling democracy to fail by our own spinelessness, the entire Middle East and most of the world will convulse in a spasm of anti-Western violence, and we will be unable to do anything about it.

In the larger war, the conflict with Iran is heating up. If it does not erupt before Bush leaves office, it will surely do so over the next few years. Iran must not be allowed to dominate the Middle East with the threat of nuclear weapons -- which they are likely to use, or give to terror groups. Our next President should have the will to do whatever is necessary to prevent them from gaining that ability, while confronting growing threats from countries like North Korea and China.

Closer to home, we need to know who is entering our country and why. Not all those who cross our wide-open borders are well-meaning folk who just want to work hard and raise a family, whatever illegal alien apologists may say. Whoever follows President Bush must not continue his lax border policies, but should build a fence on our southern border, deploy UAVs to track illegals both north and south and crack down on companies that hire illegal immigrants.

The candidate must understand that the Supreme Court's main job is to ensure that the rulings of lower courts do not violate the Constitution. The judiciary was not created to write the laws, create rights or mandate policy, and certainly not to alter the meaning of the words in the Constitution to suit an agenda. Kelo v. New London, in which the very meaning of the phrase "for public use" was changed to allow local governments to transfer private property to new owners who might generate more tax revenue, was perhaps the worst moment in the last three decades of Supreme Court history. Ignoring the fact that the McCain-Feingold Act blatantly violated the First Amendment by placing strict limits on political speech was a close second. Federal judges should not misuse their power to tell state legislatures how to write laws, allocate money or impose cultural decisions. A President should only nominate judges to any bench who are either originalists or constructionists -- not activists of any kind.

If any Presidential candidates meet the criteria for first tier issues -- and no one should bother to run who cannot do so -- they can battle over issues of the second tier.

See also: A Conservative Candidate, part 2

There is no doubt that Darfur, the western part of Sudan, is in a horrible situation. Members of the Janjaweed milita, a radical Muslim group supported by Sudan's Arab government, roam the land killing, raping, burning and pillaging. About two million people -- blacks, either non-Muslims or not Muslim enough to suit the militias -- have fled their homes for refugee camps, where they are brutalised and terrorised on a daily basis. Approximately two hundred thousand people have been killed since February 2003, according to a study by Dr. John Hagen of Northwestern University. The Sudanese government has refused to allow the United Nations to send international troops. And the UN, tired of the violence (or perhaps unable to wring a dishonest Euro out of the situation) is considering whether to just pull out, taking with them what slim hope the refugees have left.

And so, as in any dire situation, the world turns to America for help. Activists and protesters demand that President Bush stop the genocide. Hollywood actors appear in television and print ads urging action in Darfur. When President Bush mentioned Darfur in his 2007 State of the Union address, Democrats leapt to their feet, clapping wildly. When he spoke of victory in Iraq a few seconds earlier, however, most Democrats sat in stony silence. Those on the Left keep telling us that we're not the world's police. Ideological brothers-in-arms to those who cry, "Save Darfur!" recently marched in Washington DC alongside Vietnam-era traitor Jane Fonda, denounced the President for sending troops to Iraq, spat at an Iraq war veteran on crutches and defaced the Capitol. How dare they demand he send troops to Sudan?

Besides, for what purpose should we send troops -- to simply stand between members of an Islamic militia and their victims? Liberals and their pet Democrats attack the President daily for his proposal to reinforce American troops in Iraq who (as they see things) serve only as targets for the enemy. We are constantly treated to Left-wing hand-wringing over the dangers faced by (again, in their twisted view) the "children" who were "sent by Bush to die" in a "war of choice." Time magazine recently captured the Liberal attitude in a cartoon: rows of soldierly silhouettes wearing targets on their backs, with the caption, "21,500 reasons to oppose Bush's troop surge." Yet the same people want us to send those troops to perform that function in Sudan instead?

Or are we to believe that they want those troops to remove the Arab government behind the genocide? Let us apply the "Iraq test" to the Darfur situation, to help anticipate whether Liberals would consider regime change in Sudan a "good" war or a "bad" war once it reached the limit of their short attention spans. Sudan poses no possible threat to America. Sudan never attacked us. The violence in Sudan is contained. Sudan is not threatening to invade its neighbors, has no weapons of mass destruction, and we already know that Liberals do not generally believe there is an Islamic terrorist threat to the world.

If President Bush sent troops to remove Sudan's president, and if they were true to their professed principles, the anti-war crowd would practically break their necks rushing out to the streets to hold a protest rally. They have shown by opposing the war in Iraq that they do not consider genocide or brutality sufficient reasons to impose change on a "sovereign" government, even one so heinous as that of Saddam Hussein or Sudan's Umar Hasan Ahmad Al-Bashir.

We should not commit troops to a situation in which the Left would once again have the chance to stab them in the back without a pressing national interest -- and there is no such need for American troops to be in Sudan. As much as we should oppose genocide and fanatical Muslim mass murderers, the same Liberals who demand we "do something" there have damned it by their own overblown criticism of our having done something elsewhere.

Hat tip to RightThinkingGirl for the Time magazine cartoon.

Who would ever have imagined that America would be trying so hard to fight a politically-correct war just five years after 9/11 that we'd do the enemy's work for him? In a thousand years of open battle, al-Qaeda's mass-murdering fanatics could not possibly force the United States military to retreat one single inch. Yet some of our own people have been screaming for an all-out flight from Iraq every day of the last four years, and those voices are growing louder now that the Democrats control Congress. Retreat would hand the enemy a huge victory -- psychological, symbolic and very real -- and prevent the US from projecting force anywhere in the world again for at least a generation. And we may be on the verge of giving in to the terrorists.

Those on the Left cite excuses for retreat ranging from the high-sounding "innocents have been killed," to the ignorant, "it's an Iraqi internal problem," to the ridiculous "we should have never removed Saddam from power." Another "reason" we're often given is that Europeans -- the people responsible for more military massacres and imperialist invasions throughout history than the US could ever hope to achieve -- are unhappy with us, and the anti-war crowd insists that surrender would restore their good opinion. Thanks, but I think we can live with their largely impotent disapproval while continuing to fight the enemy.

In post-war Iraq, too many people have been killed while the enemy was either using them as human shields or deliberately blowing them up, and (gasp!) the cowardly thugs have even managed to kill a few of our troops while sacrificing themselves by the tens of thousands. If we're going to consider the deaths of non-combatants -- and we should -- we at least owe it to them to be honest about who is truly responsible for their deaths, and what we're trying to achieve there.

In any war in history prior to forty years ago, Iraq would have been acclaimed as a huge victory for our side, and the post-war insurgency -- fueled largely by al-Qaeda, Iran and Ba'ath party thugs -- put down without a second thought. It's impossible to imagine Americans pulling out of Germany, wringing their hands, if the post-WWII insurgency known as the Werwolves had been funded, supplied and bolstered by an outside force. Sometimes it seems as though "the greatest generation" was the last great generation.

On the other hand, few object to fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. Some actually want to send American troops to Darfur, in Sudan, to fight Islamofascist mass murderers there. It's just Iraqis they don't want to help, and for purely political reasons. So the topic of conversation in Washington changes from "how do we win this fight?" to "how fast can we get out of it?" regardless of what will happen after we leave. It seems the only person in the nation's capital still interested in winning the fight in Iraq is President Bush. Democrats plan to hold a vote on a non-binding resolution demanding that Bush send no more troops to Iraq. A non-binding resolution means that it carries no actual force, being useful, therefore, only to our enemies as propaganda. If the Democrats feel so strongly about retreating from Iraq, then let them cut off funding, instead of merely holding symbolic votes.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) accused the President, who has already begun sending additional troops to help clear Baghdad of insurgents, of "moving so quickly to put them in harm's way" because he knew Congress would not cut of funding for them if they were already there. The Democrats want so badly to relive the end of Vietnam, when they forced the US to abandon Vietnam and cut funding to our allies, that they ignore what happened next, and what will surely happen again if they repeat that mistake.

Iraq is not Vietnam, despite the hysterical comparisons made every day in the media and by Democrats such as Ted Kennedy (D-MA). But those on the Left don't seem to mind if it becomes Cambodia, as long as they can use every death as political capital in their perpetual campaign season. If we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, Iraq will become first an abattoir, then a client state of a radical rogue nation sworn to destroy us. If the Democrats allow that to happen, they would be at least irresponsible, if not derelict in their duty to the nation.

Well, the Democrats have been screaming for a "change of direction" in Iraq for ages, and it looks as though they're going to get one. The new direction they prefer, of course, is "away, at high speed, with tail tucked firmly between legs." Instead, they're getting a new focus on Baghdad as the center of Iraq's security problems, with special attention reserved for Iran's interference. In fact, it's becoming ever more likely that Iran will soon take its rightful place in the spotlight of the War on Terror.

Several things President Bush mentioned during his "surge" speech of 10 January 2006 were worth noting, aside from his plan to send five brigades -- about 17,500 troops -- to help the Iraqi government secure Baghdad. That alone resulted in howls of impotent outrage from the "cut-and-run" crowd. (Oddly enough, some of the same people upset over Bush's intention to send more troops to Iraq were calling for him to send more troops to Iraq a few short months ago.) The President referred to "too many restrictions on the troops," hinting that -- at last -- our troops will be allowed to fight the enemy, instead of having to contend with contradictory and crippling rules of engagement. He stated that "In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods." Well, it's about time.

The key to securing Baghdad -- and Iraq -- is Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. When he and his band of religious fanatics first formed their own militia and began enforcing their own laws with Iran's backing and support, al-Sadr should have been arrested. When the Iraqi government actually issued a warrant for him in 2004, al-Sadr should have been arrested. Now, al-Sadr controls a large section of Baghdad itself, and has enough followers in his Mahdi Army to pose a serious threat to the Iraqi government. He inserted himself into Iraqi politics, and may control a significant portion of Iraq if the Democrats get their way and we abandon the country. Moqtada al-Sadr is the single greatest threat to Iraqi security and, as such, must be treated like the enemy he is.

Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki apparently agrees, in principle. He's offered al-Sadr a choice: disarm the Mahdi Army or face attack. Merely disarming the group, however, may not be enough. Something not mentioned in Bush's speech, but even more critical to the success of Iraq's future, was his promotion of Lt. Gen. David Petraeus to the top military position in Iraq. Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division during the invasion of Iraq, literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency techniques. His most important task as overall commander may be dismantling the Mahdi Army one way or the other.

Another major change in the conduct of the war seems to have slipped right past the "mainstream" media. President Bush recently placed Admiral William Fallon in charge of CENTCOM. No one in the media seems to be asking why a Navy admiral would be placed in charge of all US forces in the Middle East. There is, of course, only one answer: Iran. Fallon's expertise in naval air power would be most useful against that country, if the use of force becomes necessary.

The change in tactics to focus on Iran has already begun. A raid on an Iranian "liason office" in Irbil, in northern Iraq, netted five members of a Revolutionary Guard faction "known for providing funds, weapons, improvised explosive device technology and training to extremist groups attempting to destabilize the government of Iraq and attack coalition forces," according the the US military. This appears to be only the first of many such actions designed to stop Iran's meddling in Iraq's affairs.

There's no guarantee that reducing Iran's interference in Iraq will lessen the violence and allow the elected government to expand its control. But it's a sure thing that allowing Iran to continue fomenting sectarian violence in Iraq is bad for the Iraqis... and for us. The "new direction" for the US in Iraq might just be towards the east.

The Ballad of Sandy Berger *

Come and listen to my tale about a sneaky little crime,
The perpetrator didn't do a single day of time.
When documents went missing from the Archive in DC,
It turned out they were stolen by a man they call Sandy.

Berger, that is.
Security Advisor.
Democratic star.

The moment that the story broke it went right off the air.
Bill Clinton told the media "hey, move away from there!"
We'll never know just what he tucked inside his pants, you see,
Or what the records would have done to Clinton's legacy.

History, that is.
Covering up mistakes.
Avoiding prosecution.

Now it's time to lay the blame for what ol' Sandy did.
Anyone who steals the past from us should be forbid
From ever getting clearance back for that locality
And should in fact be living in a penitentiary.

Federal, that is.
Stay a spell.
Make some new "friends."
Don't come out now, y'hear?

* sung to the tune of The Ballad of Jed Clampett, from the tv show "The Beverly Hillbillies"

Having taken control of both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections, the Democrats proceeded to surpass even my own worst predictions concerning their domestic policies before they even took their seats. Raising the minimum wage will hurt the small businesses that create the most jobs and slow growth in larger companies. Forcing unions on Wal-Mart will result in America's largest private employer reducing its workforce. Creating State-run "free" healthcare will make Americans (especially those among the swelling ranks of the unemployed) more directly dependent on government benefits and therefore less likely to vote for politicians who promise to reduce those benefits. Refusing to fund border security and granting amnesty as well as government assistance (like Social Security) to illegal immigrants will create a massive new group of solidly Democrat voters. Manipulating the economy and national security to solidify their majority, however, is just an appetiser before the main course: taking the Presidency without the bothersome detail of winning an election.

Many on the Right reacted with glee to the news that professional mourner Cindy Sheehan stopped stalking President Bush long enough to lead a group in shouting down Representative Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) as he held a press conference. The Democrats courted and supported these people in order to gain power, and now it's only fair that they have to put up with the incessant whining, right? But the situation isn't as simple (or as entertaining) as it seems on the surface. I believe Sheehan -- who once deserved sympathy, then pity, and now only scorn for her shameless manipulation of her son's death -- is being used to furnish an excuse for action against President Bush. And Sheehan stands to gain some credibility, too, by attacking someone besides Bush for a change.

Those who remember their Shakespeare (they still teach Shakespeare in schools, don't they?) may recognise in the press conference disruption an echo of Richard III. After having ruthlessly murdered or discredited everyone who stood between himself and the throne, Richard (then Duke of Gloucester) set up a scene in which he would be "forced" to accept the crown against his will by the desperate pleas of London's citizens, led by the mayor. The Duke of Buckingham, who hid his own followers among the crowd to manipulate it, advised him to look busy and refuse at first, but reluctantly acquiesce to the crowd's demand:

The mayor is here at hand: intend [express] some fear;
Be not you spoke with, but by mighty suit:
And look you get a prayer-book in your hand,
And stand betwixt two churchmen, good my lord;
For on that ground I'll build a holy descant:
And be not easily won to our request:
Play the maid's part, still answer nay, and take it.
- Richard III (Act III, scene vii)

Many of the things that seem to be going wrong for America today can be traced to an excess of political correctness -- if, indeed, that's not a redundant phrase. When tempered by confidence in one's self and culture, the desire not to offend others comes out as simple politeness. But when it gets out of control, as it does among Liberals, it becomes a need to prevent oneself from giving any possible hint of offense, combined with a desire to "make up" for any self-perceived racial or cultural advantage one may have, at any cost. Such desires can cause great harm to a person or a culture -- or even kill them.

It's political correctness that's causing us the most harm in the War on Terror, especially in Iraq. How can we win a war in which we're determined not to offend anyone, even the enemy? Political correctness caused us to treat Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr as an equal, back when his group of Iran-backed thugs was small enough to take out of the picture, if we'd had the political will. Now, he's a major player -- and a major problem.

In so many cases, our troops are not allowed to return fire when attacked from mosques, nor even from homes without a careful -- and often deadly -- investigation. Every action they take is dissected in detail, second-guessed by the "mainstream" media and those who seem to actually crave failure... and even used to prosecute them for doing their jobs. 

In Guantanamo Bay and other places, political correctness prevents us from interrogating captured enemy fighters. Instead, our troops feed them "culturally sensitive" meals and put on gloves before handling their Qur'ans -- giving in to their psychotic conviction that we are "unclean" and need to be converted or wiped out. The gloves are an ironic symbol of the delicate manner in which our soldiers are forced to treat the enemy both on and off the battlefield.

Political correctness prevents us from demanding that Iran and Syria stop shoveling funds, weapons and "foreign fighters" across their borders into Iraq as fast as they can move it all. In our zeal to treat international criminals like statesmen and elected leaders, we cripple ourselves. The leaders of Iran, in addition to supporting terrorists and insurgents in Iraq, are openly working on nuclear weapons and have declared their intention to wipe Israel off the map. Iranian clerics regularly call for the destruction of America, to the cheering of crowds. According to MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute):

Responding to the sermons, frenzied crowds of Iranians chant, "Death to America," "Death to England," and "Death to Israel," with the occasional "Death to Saddam." Other popular chants include "America will be annihilated," "Islam will be victorious," "Woe to the enemy if Khamenei commands me to wage jihad," and countless other curses against the West.

The sermons focus on threats against the "Great Satan," America, and the "Little Satan," Israel, and their coming collapse. Other themes are attacks on President Bush, praise for jihad and martyrdom, Iraq, and support for Iran's nuclear program.

The Nativity c.1653 by Jacob Jordaens (1593-1678)

It seems as though the first reaction of many people on both sides of the political fence to the news of Senator Tim Johnson's (D-SD) sudden illness was, "How will this affect the balance of power in the Senate? Oh, and I hope he's alright." The mainstream media ghouls injected the question of Democratic control into every other sentence when covering the story. On one popular Left-wing web site, for instance, "well-wishers" posted such sentiments as, "Nothing is going to take away our victory. Period," and "sd has a repug gov ... the thought of majority leader mcconnell would be a damper on ... our holidays" Frankly, I hope Senator Johnson's soon up and about, and back on duty when the Senate goes into session. 

First and foremost, it's immoral to hope a person suffers in order for one's "team" to make gains, whether we're discussing sports or politics. The Left may see people as pawns in a political game, but we should not sink to their level. Whatever his politics, Tim Johnson is a very sick man with a very worried family. Suffering a stroke, or whatever incapacitating event may have happened to him, is nothing short of a tragedy. I, for one, would not want Republicans gaining control of the Senate at such a price, even if that were to happen.

If Senator Johnson is unable to fulfill his duties, the Republican governor of South Dakota would likely appoint a Republican Senator to take Johnson's place for the remainder of his term. This would change the Senate from a Democratic majority to a 50-50 split, with all ties decided by Vice President Dick Cheney, who is also President of the Senate. All the ardent speculation, however, would be for nothing in the end anyway. Not only would Johnson's stepping down change nothing in reality, but hoping for it is demeaning and detrimental to everyone.

There would be no real gain for Republicans or Conservatives should the Senate be split evenly. The so-called "balance of power" would probably not shift an inch even if Governor Mike Rounds appointed the most fire-breathing Conservative in America (whoever the reader might think would fill that bill) to take Johnson's place. Democrats nearly always vote in lockstep, while too many Republicans vote with them all too often. The term RINO (Republican in Name Only) is familiar to those who follow politics, but there is no corresponding widely-used term like "DINO."

With 55 Republicans, the Senate still passed bills granting de facto amnesty to illegal immigrants, huge Medicare entitlements and massive pork-laden spending bills of all kinds. They failed to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, had trouble confirming Federal judges at every level and were unable to even confirm John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations. What makes anyone think that 50 Republicans can do what 55 could not? It would only take one Republican siding with the Democrats to pass (or kill) nearly any bill. The problem is not the number of Republicans in the Senate (and the House, and the White House), it's the number of Conservatives, which is woefully inadequate.

For the next two years, Democratic politicians will be unable to hide behind the myth of "Republican control" when explaining their failures to their far-Left base. The Democrats are now in the open, in control of both Houses, with nowhere to run. They have to switch from the party of obstruction to the party of action... and there are so few actions that will satisfy all the members of the fractured coalitions that vote Democrats into office.

I'll be damned, to make a bad pun, before I sell my soul for mere politics, especially when any gain would be a purely nominal one. I wish Senator Johnson a speedy and full recovery, for human as well as political reasons, and hope you all do the same.

Hat tip to Wuzzadem for the comments from Daily Kos and other sites.