Take heart, GOPers

In contrast to what he says, there isn't much that President Barack Obama is doing that makes many of us confident about the future.

But watching much of the Conservative Political Action Conference, and seeing some Republican governors and minority leaders in Congress at work, does. There's Bobby Jindal. Sarah Palin. Mark Sanford. Haley Barbour. Mike Pence. Eric Cantor. Newt Gingrich. Even Mitt Romney — who has been more impressive each time I've seen him, lately.

A review of the list does give me a good deal of confidence that the Republican Party does have quality leaders, and there are men and women there who are capable of advancing. Any of those named seem viable as potential future presidents. But my optimism does not come from any one of these names, or even from the collection of them together.

It comes from something much grander than personalities, even those in this group.

It comes from principle. Again, for the first time in years, Republicans are standing — together — for something. They're standing — together — for the things we elected them to fight for.

Few Americans agree with Obama's view of how the world works, and his view of government's role in life. He was elected because his personality was more likable than the caricature that the Bush Administration became in the last few years.

Americans don't like the idea of trillion-dollar deficits. None of us would take on a trillion dollars worth of debt — not when we were $10 trillion in the hole to begin with — and we don't think the government should do so, either.

Americans don't make friends with unrepentant terrorists like Bill Ayers, or with lunatics masquerading as a preacher like Jeremiah Wright. Americans don't think their taxes ought to go up. Americans prefer the government to leave them alone, rather than centrally planning every detail of every life.

Americans voted for Barack Obama — who disagrees with them on most issues — because the alternative was a Republican. And for the last eight years, Republicans had lost their way. There wasn't a whole lot of conservatism in the spending deficits, socialized prescription drugs or nationalizing the banking industry. There was a good deal of conservatism in Congressional Republicans' standing steadfast against the asinine "stimulus" bill the Democrats are shoving up our asses — and in those few governors' who have said they'll reject some of the money anyway.

These folks, and others of like mind, are fighting for principles far greater than themselves. They're doing what Republicans were elected for: to prevent government expansion. Because a government strong enough to give you anything is powerful enough to take it away.

They're standing for something. They're standing, together, for something important.

Seeing it makes me very confident for the future.

Goodbye, Rocky Mountain News

When I hear of the financial woes of the newspaper industry, I'm usually not too distraught. There are several papers (read: The New York Times) that would do the world a favor by shuttering up their buildings.

But that's not how I feel about the Rocky Mountain News, which published its final edition today.

The Rocky Mountain News (the best-named paper in the country, in my estimation) has been a huge part of Colorado for more than a century. I still remember when my dad first subscribed (via mail service, since he lives a few hundred miles from Denver) so he could get daily news about the Broncos.

It was always fun to grab the enormous rolled-up packet of news print and be the first one to soil its perfect folds, to rummage through the Sports section headlines, to read the comics.

I'm not advocating an auto-bailout style intervention here. The government could dump trillions of our dollars into the country's newspaper companies. When the money ran out, the presses would still cost too much to run and people will have read it all online by the time the paper came out anyway. And the companies would fail — just like the auto companies will fail again, unless they radically alter their obsolete business plans. (We ought not subsidize the old way just because it employs a lot of people.)

Newspapers are nearing obsolescence. Their business model is no longer realistic, and they can't hope to compete with the internet. This is the real world. And innovation has changed things over the last 15 years.

I'd argue that those changes are, mostly, for the better. But when something like the Rocky Mountain News is among the casualties, it's still pretty sad.

Justice Department plans to ignore Second Amendment (for Mexico's sake)

I fear the Obama Administration has absolutely no idea why the Constitution was written, much less a respect for it.

Today Attorney General Eric Holder said the administration hopes to re-institute the idiotic 1990s "assault weapons ban" (that, incidentally, was not about assault weapons, was not a ban, and never saved a single victim's life).

What's worse is the reason Holder sited when making the announcement: "I think that will have a positive impact on Mexico, at a minimum."

Mexico?

Are these people %$#*ing serious?

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear, stark language. It was written that way for a reason — because government cannot be trusted to take just a little bit of freedom away and let it go at that. Once they start infringing, they won't ever stop.

And now the attorney general of the United States of America is putting the crime-fighting interests of our weak- and corrupt-governmented neighbor to the south.

For one thing, ten bucks says the drug dealers, human traffickers and sex slave-runners will still behead their enemies. (Maybe the United States should ban knives!)

For another thing, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, was written to protect Americans from their government. Fighting a foreign country's crime-battles is not our job.

'Stimulus' whether you like it or not

Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger joked this weekend about the few state governors who have put forth the possibility that they might reject money from the federal "economic stimulus" bill. "I just hope they give me their funding," he said. And after seeing the massive shortfalls the California government is expecting in the next few years — maybe as much as $40 billion — it'd be hard to blame him for saying so.

But there are six governors who are not so enthusiastic about state welfare. Governors Mark Sanford (South Carolina), Rick Perry (Texas), Haley Barbour (Mississippi), Bobby Jindal (Louisiana), Sarah Palin (Alaska) and Butch Otter (Idaho) all have indicated severe reservations about the money. They seem especially concerned about the strings that will (no doubt) be attached to it.

These are six states whose budget woes are milder than most. The governors are all Republicans, and at least four of them have been described as ambitious — and possible 2012 presidential candidates. So it's easy for big-spenders throughout the country to harass these governors, to question their motivations, and to belittle the cavalierity of their principle because they are not in dire need.

Their opponents have accused them of political opportunism and even racism. Rep. James Clyburn (D—S.C.) said such thoughts were a "slap in the face of African-Americans." (This is the "bipartisan" nature of the Democratic majority in Congress: You disagree with us? You must hate black people.)

But the (much) larger point is, governors and legislatures in these states have towed the line. They're considering not taking the money because they don't need it, not the other way around.

They ought to be congratulated and rewarded, not denigrated as anti-black. Those states have balanced their budgets. They've made sure to not accept financial obligations they cannot keep. They've acted responsibly.

Meanwhile, California and other states have not. Most have spent money on, for example, the California Integrated Waste Management Board. If ever there was an Orwellian commission, it is the CIWMB. Schwarzenegger just appointed the crooked former state senator Carole Migden to that board, a post which will pay her $132,000 a year.

Schwarzenegger himself says the board is a waste and ought to be abolished.

The biggest problem is, even if those state governments decide to decline their allotted sums of the federal "stimulus" money, taxpayers in them will be as responsible for paying it off as taxpayers in California.

So while those few state governments who don't spend too much money on too many stupid things are considering turning down money from the federal government, the greedy and inept majority of state governments are slopping at the trough and laughing about it.

Secretary Sebelius

At first, I joked I was happy President Obama was (reportedly) going to pick Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as his new Health and Human Services secretary — just because it would finally get her out of Kansas.

But the more I think about it, the less I like it.

She could quite possibly do less damage as an obscure cabinet member than she has as our governor. But knowing the president's ambitious plans to socialize health care (and add to whatever "human services" he can) I fear she'll be afforded more authority than she has earned.

To be fair, Sebelius has done a good job in Kansas of holding the line on spending. In her first days in office, she cut several "small" expenditures — housekeeping staff, printing fees, etc. — that were a drop in the bucket when compared to state education or Medicare costs, but were significant expenditures in their own right. She has, on multiple occasions, refused to increase spending when many governors would not have done so.

But a couple of the high-profile battles she has fought as governor border on insane.

For two years, she waged an idiotic war on gun rights, twice vetoing a concealed carry law that passed the Kansas Legislature with enormous margins. Kansas was one of a tiny handful of states that had no concealed carry law at the time, and concealed carry laws are effective at fighting crime, morally sound and popular. But Sebelius decided to fly in the face of popular opinion and reason. Fortunately, her veto of the bill was overridden.

Perhaps it was worse when the Sebelius Administration abused its powers of regulation to reject a legitimate, legal business enterprise when Sunflower Electric tried to expand its power plant near Holcomb in 2007. Without a legal or moral leg to stand on, Sebelius invented a "carbon dioxide" threat and rejected permission that Sunflower should never have had to ask. It would have been the single largest construction project in the state's history, created a significant amount of jobs, and supplied a product — electricity — that we need more and more of every day.

Since, Sunflower has had to take to the courts to attempt to overturn her idiotic ruling that industry is bad. A barely-too-small-to-override-a-veto majority attempted to override Sebelius' decision with legislation, but fell a few votes short of a veto override. My parents and most of the rest of southwest Kansas now have to pay legal fees because their electric cooperative must sue for the right to conduct business.

To this day, only a handful of hippies in Lawrence, 25.3 percent of state legislators, and Sebelius agree with her decision to unilaterally deny commerce in the state. She gives no indication of caring what her constituents think.

The biggest problem with Washington is that talented, good-intentioned politicians go there and then change: They lose track of why people elected them in the first place, and they become a part of the problem rather than the solution. With Kathleen Sebelius, if President Obama brings her in to his cabinet, this will not be the case.

She was out of touch to begin with.

Dear Barack Obama

I hope you don't mind a bit of unsolicited advice.

Right now, you are doing exactly what I expected. I was amazed when you allowed Nancy Pelosi to write the "economic stimulus" bill that has been attached firmly at the hip to your good name.

You entered office as the most popular politician in the world. I voted against you, just as hard as I could, but even I understand that such a trait can be valuable. And you promised "hope" and "change."

Unfortunately, the monstrosity that Pelosi et al. drew up was not hopeful or changeful. It was a dramatic, stomach-sickeningly magnification of everything that is bad about Congress. They take out loans we can't afford to spend money we don't have on things we don't need. And those things don't really do any good, not in the long term.

My suggestion is probably too late: You've invested so much in this giant, heaping pile of garbage that you might not be able to turn about now. But it would be good if you did — good for the country, and good for your image.

You ought to tell Congress you will veto the bill they are considering, and write your own (which you should have done in the first place, at least that's what I would have done in the first place) and submit it as an alternative.

Your bill should include a variety of tax cuts to promote business growth — eliminate the capital gains tax and the alternative minimum tax for the next five years, as well as cutting taxes on investment. And your bill can include infrastructure projects that genuinely will improve the lives of the people who need them.

And it should include absolutely zero pork projects. No sod for the Washington Mall. No waterparks. No STD protection research. Tell Pelosi and Co. that if they add those things, you'll veto the whole damn thing and hold a press conference describing their excess.

You're the most popular politician in the world. There is only one person on the planet that can make this happen, and it's you. And if you do it, you'll have gone a long way to deliver your promise of change.

We're all rooting for you.