Suspicious Minds.

Barack Obama is black. Barack Obama is also a liberal Democrat.

If you ask conservatives why they don't like Obama, they'll probably point to characteristic no. 2. But liberal commentators can see through this charade.

Those conservative hicks don't care about "the constitution," "limited government," or some stuff that Thomas Jefferson wrote. When they say "socialist," they really mean "scary black person."

The proof? Why, it's all around us --
The nutty conspiracy theories.
The heated rhetoric.
The sheer disrespect they show for The Office of The President. (*gasp!*)

Political differences could never stir up this kind of deep-seated hatred. It's a bonafide Presidential lynching -- angry whites rising up to destroy an uppity colored man.

After all, remember how nice conservatives were to Bill Clinton -- a white, moderate Democrat from Arkansas?

I sure don't.

You want conspiracy theories? Forget that whole birther deal -- fringe conservatives accused Clinton of being personally responsible for several murders. And when Clinton proposed his health care plan, it was opposed (and eventually defeated) with just as much fervor by conservatives in Congress. Talk-radio, the fount from which so much of this racial animosity is supposedly flowing, rose to prominence as the center of opposition to the Clinton administration.

Maybe some of Obama's critics are racists. And maybe some of Obama's supporters are racists. To be quite honest, I'm not sure what goes on deep inside the minds of everyone in America. But the fact that a group of people loudly -- even rudely -- opposes someone with different political views can be understood without pathetically playing the race card.

Sadly, even when it comes to something as universally tragic as the 9/11 attacks, some liberals just can't resist making everything about race. Kate Clinton (of no relation to Bill), a writer for the Huffington Post, had this to say about the Republican reaction Barack Obama:

"Republicans treat President Obama as if he were a substitute and they are just waiting for the real deal to come back in the room. That would be a white Republican male. Their desperate efforts to delegitimize an elected president (not to be confused with their efforts to legitimate a selected president) remind me of their panicked response to the terror attacks on September eleventh, eight years ago. For many of them, it was their first experience being attacked. Unlike women, poor people, and people of color who know being attacked as a pre-existing condition, the white guys freaked. Their world order was rocked. They panicked, put the country in lockdown and retaliated against the wrong country."

Yes, you read that correctly: September 11th was only frightening for white males. And those dumb ol' white men only attacked Iraq 'cause they were so scared. Seriously.

But moving on from that breath-taking piece of ignorant nonsense, Clinton's first point was partially valid. Republicans probably do consider Obama as a place-holder until they can get someone from their own party in office. Just as Democrats thought of Bush as some idiot they had to put up with until the coming of their messiah. In the political system, you're always looking towards the next election cycle -- and hoping to win. That's life.

It has nothing to do with race. Sure, Republicans would love to replace Obama with a white male Republican. They'd also love to replace him with a white female Republican. Or a black male Republican. Or an black female Republican.

Throughout his political career, Obama has called on conservatives and liberals to stop questioning each other's motives. And while Obama hasn't always lived up to this standard, it's a good bit of advice.

It's easy to believe that someone who disagrees with you is motivated by some dark force in the recesses of their soul. But in the end, all you get is a debate poisoned by imaginary issues.

A Family Affair.

When Mark Sanford vanished, it was a big story. When he reappeared, and confessed to an affair with a woman in Argentina, it became a once-in-a-lifetime feast of scandal and intrigue.

And it didn't take long for pundits to pull out the hypocrisy card.

You see, Mark Sanford's south-of-the-border infidelity was only a minor sin, on par with downloading the second season of ALF on Bittorent. And we've all been there, right? Yes, the real crime was that Sanford had the gall to promote "family values" while he indulged in private iniquity. Sanford was a hypocrite.

Senator John Ensign, another conservative Republican, had just admitted to an affair of his own a week earlier. Another hypocrite.

So, people started to connect the dots:

Sanford.
Ensign.
Vitter.
Craig.
Foley.

The already-triumphant left became jubulient. They finally had a dossier of evidence that discredited those religious-right loonies once and for all.

It was so simple: anyone who really cared about family values would have no choice but to migrate to the Democratic Party, led by shiny dad-in-chief Obama.

But wait -- what about all those Democratic sex scandals?

Like John Edwards, who fathered an illegitimate child while his wife was stricken with cancer?
Like Elliot Spitzer, who hired a prostitute?
And didn't his successor, David Patterson, have... marital problems.... of his own?
What about big-city mayors like Kwame Kilpatrick, Gavin Newsom, and Antonio Villaraigosa?
Or President Bill Clinton?

Gosh. It sure looks like this whole infidelity thing doesn't really respect party lines. But what about the hypocrisy thing? Democrats may cheat, but are they hypocrites?

To a certain extent, yes.

Politicians of all stripes try to paint themselves as model family men. It isn't a Republican thing. And generally, Republicans are no more judgmental than Democrats. It's worth noting that Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican, was the first divorced President.

Sure, Republicans have a habit of attacking Democrats for their personal failings, but Democrats are all too happy to return the favor. Whenever a tawdry scandal is exposed, you can bet that people will exploit it for political gain.

And Republicans may tend to take conservative positions on issues like abortion and gay marriage, but frankly, neither of those issues have much to do with cheating on your spouse. Opponents of gay marriage may talk about the "sanctity" of marriage, and traditional values, but supporters of gay marriage appear to believe that marriage is pretty darn important as well, and I haven't heard of any Democrats (unless Woody Allen counts) who openly support infidelity.

But even if conservatives alone bore the stain of hypocrisy, would it matter?

Not really.

When someone fails to live up to the standards they preach, they discredit themselves -- not their standards. If Officer Bob tells a classroom full of kiddies to stay off drugs, and then goes home and overdoses on painkillers, it doesn't become okay to become a pill-popping fiend. And when a socially-conservative politician has a fling with a South American vixen, it doesn't mean that marriage is a sham. It means he is.

Thank goodness. If we tossed out ideals every time we failed to live up to them, we wouldn't have much left to believe in.

The idea that Republicans are losing their "values voter" cred is just as absurd. Socially conservative voters support Republicans because they agree with their policies. Voters in South Carolina may give Sanford the boot, but it's unlikely that they'll replace him with a liberal Democrat.

In the end, cheaters like Sanford, Ensign or Clinton are just people who did something bad. Sometimes their careers die, and sometimes they don't. Their actions don't -- and shouldn't -- herald the death of a party or an ideology. Anyone who pretends that adultery (or hypocrisy) is a Republican problem or a Democratic problem is willfully ignorant.

It turns out that there are humans in both parties. Who knew?

Drive-By Democrats.

As my last post demonstrated, I'm not a fan of Rush Limbaugh.

Or at least, not of his style.

But to be fair and balanced, I'll say this: the Democratic Party's bizarre Limbaugh-fixation is petty and cowardly.

Rush Limbaugh isn't an elected official. He isn't the leader of the Republican Party, even though many Republicans happen to agree with him. When Limbaugh says something offensive, Republicans aren't obligated to denounce him.

Setting up a controversial talk-show host as a punching bag is diversionary politics at its worst. As Karl Rove inappropriately put it: "In the face of our enormous economic challenges, top White House aides decided to pee on Mr. Limbaugh's leg."

And the DNC's latest anti-Limbaugh stunt is simply idiotic:

(From CNN)

National Democrats plan to unveil a new theme Thursday in their ongoing campaign to portray conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh as the true leader of the Republican Party.

The slogan, "Americans didn't vote for a Rush to failure," will be splashed across a billboard in Limbaugh's hometown of West Palm Beach, Florida, and printed on T-shirts, a Democratic National Committee official told CNN.

Limbaugh has said several times that he hopes President Barack Obama fails, a sentiment that has put elected Republicans in a tight spot during the nation's economic crisis.

The official said more than 80,000 slogans were submitted as part of a contest on the DNC's Web site, and more than 50,000 people helped narrow the list to the top five.

Ha! Taste the wrath of our mediocre puns!

Close, But No Cigar.

On Saturday, Rush Limbaugh gave a little speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). It was about conservatism. In his typically populist style, Rush inserted plenty of jabs at his favorite targets: the media, big government, bureaucrats, and Barack Obama. His enthusiastic audience of conservative activists ate it up; they applauded constantly and laughed at all the right spots.

 
Rush Limbaugh believes that the future of conservatism should look a lot like the past of conservatism. Or, in his own words: "Conservatism is what it is and it is forever." Rush's recipe for conservative success is simple:

"The American people may not all vote the way we wish them to, but more Americans than you now live their lives as conservatives in one degree or another. And they are waiting for leadership. We need conservative leadership. We can take this country back. All we need is to nominate the right candidate."

In the real world, things aren't so simple. Polling has consistently shown that most Americans want lower taxes but more government services. Consistent conservatives are hard to find. 

If they want their glory days to return, conservatives need to do more than preach to the choir. This doesn't mean that conservatives need to abandon their principles -- but they do need to abandon Limbaugh's rhetoric.

Limbaugh's schtick works well on the radio. It generates ratings, controversy, and money. It is not, however, a winning electoral strategy.

The Limbaugh formula is defined by a sustained negative tone. Conservatives are always the victims of the "Drive-By Media." Democrats are to blame for the nation's ills, even if Republicans are in control. The Clintons are always secretly pulling the strings somewhere. A vast liberal conspiracy seeks to create a Stalinist dictatorship.

Limbaugh derides government solutions to national problems, but rarely offers alternatives. Sometimes he doesn't even acknowledge that the problems exist.

The end result is a product that sells to a certain audience, and infuriates everyone else.  

Sarah Palin's train-wreck of a Vice Presidential run illustrated the hollowness of Limbaugh conservatism. In her role as McCain's lipstick-adorned pit bull, she sarcastically attacked Obama for working as a community organizer, for being a socialist, and for "palling around with terrorists." Most of all, she continually disparaged the "elites", that elusive group of evil liberals that lurks somewhere in the sewers of San Francisco. She was not a policy expert. Her main role was that of a demagogue, firing up crowds that already agreed with her message.

When she made a fool of herself on network television, she blamed the liberal media.

Nationally, she became a laughingstock. But Limbaugh and his ilk are still convinced that Palin represents the future of the Republican party. On the other side, liberal commentators have pronounced that Palin failed because she was too conservative on social issues.

Both sides are wrong.

Palin and other Limbaugh Republicans will consistently fail on the national scene because they present a stale combination of negativity and overused buzzwords instead of solid leadership.

It isn't enough to rail against big government and socialism. The size of government is irrelevant to the concerns of average people. They just want a society that works. If smaller government achieves that goal, make a reasonable case for it. Republicans can no longer assume that everyone agrees with them on the fundamentals. 

American healthcare is very expensive. Lots of people are uninsured. Saying that we have the "best healthcare in the world" doesn't help anyone. Optimism is a good thing -- but there's a fine line between optimistic and out of touch. 

Sarcasm can be beautiful, but not when it's a major component of a political campaign. Americans like being inspired. Ronald Reagan used plenty of soaring rhetoric; making fun of Obama when he does the same isn't winning any points.

Beating up on the media is a dead end. When you lose a game, don't blame the referee. Play harder next time, and win. 

The East and West Coasts are a part of the U.S.A. If you want to expand your party's reach, it might help to stop demonizing large geographical regions of your own country.

Government can only shrink if community involvement grows. There is nothing liberal about volunteering to perform community work. Apathetic individualists who hide behind their white picket fences ensure the necessity of government welfare programs. 

These truisms could go on forever. But it comes down to this: we need conservative leaders who can present conservative principles in a fresh way. Conservatives shouldn't be content to merely disagree with the other side; they need a bold plan for the future that can rival Obama's ambitious liberal agenda. 

Rush Limbaugh can keep on doing his thing. He's certainly making enough money. But if conservative politicians want another Reagan revolution, they'll have to blaze a new trial.