Conservatives must keep 2012 insight while fighting Battle of the Debt Ceiling

By and large, I've remained somewhat silent, until now, about the ongoing 'deficit' battle in our nation's capital. Frankly, it's a complicated matter and it would be naive of me to think that there is a simple solution, hence my silence as I've mulled this over. I must admit, however, that I did meet Illinois Republican Joe Walsh and encouraged him to stand strong on this issue. But, the question is, what does standing strong really mean and what is the right thing to do?

For those unfamiliar with this blog or its author, I proudly consider myself a TEA Party member. I believe the 2006 and 2008 elections were disastrous for the continued viability of this country and, Nancy "save the world from republicans" Pelosi should consider this, will lead to a diminished America with far-reaching negative effects for the world as a whole.We must reverse course and get this country back on track. That's why I created this blog and why I'm sitting here this morning, with other things to do, taking time to write this piece.

To find the correct solution to a problem first starts with an accurate assessment of the situation and ones goals. The situation is this, the loggerhead in Washington, D.C., is a result of the 2010 election. In other words, without the influx of constitutionally minded TEA Party conservatives, there would be no debate. Obama and the spendocrats would have long ago passed a debt ceiling increase and republicans warning of America's debt would have been ignored by the spendocrats and the lamestream media that supports them.

We, the TEA Party, have largely framed the debate. We've forced them to consider their spending habits. That was certainly part of our goal, as I see it, in 2010. It was also our goal to change the way things are done in Washington, D.C. Many within the TEA Party have expressed outrage over the propensity of our elected officials to conduct our business behind closed doors where it's easier for them to operate based on their personal agendas rather than the nation's best interests. Clearly, and in spite of the hollow words of candidate Obama, there is less transparency in D.C. than ever.

It is also our goal, once again, as I see it, for our elected officials to operate within the limits of the constitution. Rumors that Obama may abuse the 14th Amendment to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling certainly puts that issue at risk. Of course, it's redundant to point out that Obama the "constitutional professor" has shown a marked lack of reverence for the constitution.

Still, there are many in the public who, with far less concern over the value of limited government, would applaud Obama for stepping out from the shadows to 'save the day' by solving the current crisis. Pundits who point out Obama's negative position on this issue should be a little more wary of that possibility.

While Obama has otherwise faded into the weeds during this crisis, the republican-controlled House is at odds with the democrat-controlled senate, constitutional republicans are at odds with their wishy-washy brothers and sisters and Ole' Plastic Puss Pelosi is espousing her customary baseless and insane nonsense from the wings. This all leaves the rest of us wondering: 1) do we stand firm against a debt ceiling increase at any cost or; 2) do we support Senate Leader John Boehner's plan?

For me, this is where I went back to take another look at our goals. Changing Washington, D.C., spending habits is certainly a major goal, and we've certainly made ground in that respect, at least in terms of the course of the debate. Of course, as some have pointed out, even with an agreement, what guarantee do we have that our elected officials will abide by it?

That is some duly deserved cynicism. Yet, an agreement that begins turning this ship away from a policy of dramatic overspending is still a good thing.

The other goal is to continue bringing America back to a constitutional footing in 2012. Consider what will happen after 2012 if Obama is re-elected, if the Senate remains under democrat control and if the House returns to the liberal fold.

The first effect of such an electoral outcome we can anticipate is the abandonment of fiscal conservatism. Whatever deal is reached now, in terms of the debt ceiling crisis, will mean nothing post-liberal-electoral victory in 2012. Any, albeit limited, restraint Obama and the liberals have demonstrated since 2009 would vanish like a wisp of smoke in a wind storm.

To put it succinctly, the debate today hinges on the outcome of an election tomorrow (November 2012). It, likewise, will probably play a significant role in the outcome of that election. Therefore, and though it may pain us to consider the situation this way, we cannot ignore the long-term political ramifications of the current debate. If we win this battle and it costs us the war in 2012, this situation will make the elections of 2006 and 2008 look like conservative landslides.

Therefore, to state our goals, as I see them, in the current Battle of the Debt Ceiling: 1) Avoid causing any harm to the nation's credit rating; 2) shift America away from fiscal irresponsibility and onto a course of fiscal conservatism; 3) maintain a strong conservative position from which to assail Obama and the liberals in the 2012 election.

As I see it, this probably means supporting the Speaker of the House and his plan. Let the democrats, who already voted against a balanced budget, now vote against a 'reasonable' plan to get us out of this crisis. Let Obama veto such a plan, if he dares, or even continue to stand publicly against it if it never reaches his desk.

This battle will probably not be our opponent's Waterloo but it could very well be ours if we don't play it right.

Not voting is half a vote for Obama

Mitt Romney is not my choice to run against Obama in 2012. Mark Kirk was not the ideal candidate I hoped for in the Illinois Senate race of 2010. For that matter, even if he could have won, John McCain was not my preferred presidential choice in 2010, either. And yet, the latter two received my vote. And, if he wins the primary, the prior will also receive my vote.

I know people who will call me a sellout for such an attitude. I understand the emotional forces at play that make them feel that way. I share those emotions.

For far too long, the people we’ve sent to Washington, D.C., and our respective state capitals, have arrived in office and ‘compromised’ with the welfare of our nation and our individual liberties. A little chip here, a little chip there, next thing you know, a Sequoia is tumbling to the ground. We want our representatives to stand firm on constitutional principles. I want them to do so with every fiber of my being.

So, if compromise is the problem in D.C., maybe that problem starts at the polling place. Maybe if we, as voters, stood firmer on principle, maybe we’d elect people who would show a little more backbone once elected.

I think that’s true. We need to do a much better job of vetting our candidates. We need to spend more time working to put the best names possible on the ballots. But, once the names are printed on that ballot, there is no room for compromise. Someone on that ballot will be elected. For my money, better a wishy-washy excuse for a conservative than a blatant social engineering liberal.

This doesn’t mean that, by defeating the liberal, a Jello-necked quasi conservative has suddenly achieved hero status in my eyes. In fact, I would say such a candidate, once elected, puts a greater onus of responsibility on my shoulders to hold his or her feet to the fire.

I’ve watched Representative Joe Walsh (R-IL 8^th District) carefully since he took office. With small exception, I’ve found that he’s done a remarkable job of following through where he promised in the campaign. Since I liked what he said in the campaign, I can relax my vigilance ever so slightly with the proven demonstration that apparently there’s more to Joe than just talk. Oh, I’ll keep my eyes open but, a candidate of this nature allows me more freedom to worry about other mundane matters, such as individual survival.

In the case of Mark Kirk, the opposite is true. A fiscal conservative, with the jury still out on that matter, I’ve already seen what can happen with Kirk in office. Let’s just say he’s far too cozy with the liberal sect on some social issues, such as gays in the military, for my comfort. I have no choice but to watch Kirk keenly, and to let him know that I’m watching. If he doesn’t know that I, and others like me, are watching, who knows what Kirk will do?

And so, even though I don’t particularly like having Kirk as one of my senatorial representatives in Washington, D.C., he’s still the best senator from Illinois today by a wide margin and he’ll still get my vote if he’s the primary victor to run against a liberal in the next senatorial election for that seat.

Am I selling out? No. I’ll work against Kirk in the primary and, for that matter, I’ll work hard against him. But, once the primary is over, I know where the enemy stands. In the case of a Romney v. Obama campaign for president, I don’t have to think about it. I don’t have to flip a coin. I don’t have to say “enie, menie, minie, moe.” Mitt Romney is so vastly superior to Obama as a presidential candidate that the choice is obvious on the face of it. It’s like trying to decide whether you want to jump into a pool with your clothes on or take a high dive off the Sears Tower (or whatever they’re calling it these days).

The water may be cold and my shoes, clothes and everything in my wallet may get wet voting for Romney but the continued descent with BO in the White House has a clear and unmistakable destination. And like they say in the construction trades, it’s not the fall that gets you, it’s that sudden stop.

So, if you don’t like Romney, do as I do in the primary – get out there and work for a better candidate. But, once the primary is over, the only room for compromise is to vote for or against a continuation of a constitutionally based America. The only question is whether you will compromise the integrity of your vote by withholding your vote from Obama’s opponent, which is half a vote for Obama.