Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Rich Muny on social-conservative opposition to online gambling.

Fred Barnes on the GOP’s fight against Obamacare.

John Gizzi on the grassroots support for New York Congressional candidate Doug Hoffman.

Karl Rove on what next Tuesday’s elections in New Jersey, Virginia and New York mean for the Democratic Party.

Please join us tonight on The Notes on Blog Talk Radio at 8:00pm EST–our guests will be authors Marvin Rogers and Dr. Jerome Corsi!

Am I the only one who likes the sound of a Sarah Palin-Newt Gingrich ticket in 2012?

If one wanted to put together a conservative dream team to challenge President Barack Obama and Vice Presdient Joseph Biden in three years, one would be hard-pressed to come up with a stronger tandem than the former Alaska Governor and the legendary former House Speaker. A Palin-Gingrich ticket would unite all three factions of the American right, and would also appeal to many independents—and a number of moderates as well.

A Palin-Gingrich ticket would be an effective combination of outsider smarts and insider skills. Gingrich could help Palin navigate Washington’s rough waters, providing her with the wise counsel she will need as she endeavors to impose needed limits on the size of the federal bureaucracy.

In order to defeat President Obama, Palin will have to destroy the perception that she’s unfit to control Presidential aircraft. What better way to nullify that perception than by announcing that Newt will be her co-pilot? While Gingrich is certainly a controversial figure in American politics, he’s no more controversial than Dick Cheney was in 2000.

Yes, Gingrich has had his share of scandals, and movement conservatives haven’t always seen eye-to-eye with him. Yet his conservative credentials are impeccable, and those who desire an alternative to the Obama vision will find Gingrich more than suitable for the Vice Presidential role.

If the GOP pairs Palin with Gingrich, the party will not have to worry about insufficient turnout by the party base. Palin and Gingrich are the only legitimate heirs to Ronald Reagan’s legacy; both figures have the ability to put forth an optimistic conservative vision that could resonate with a voting majority.

Obviously, a Palin-Gingrich victory would not be a foregone conclusion. While Gingrich would likely break Biden like thin glass in a debate, Palin would have to demonstrate superior debating chops against Obama. In addition, she would also have to reassure the electorate that she will not go on some neoconservative foreign-policy spending spree as President; state-building can never be made palatable to the voting public.

For his part, Gingrich would have to confront unpleasant questions about his personal life. For years, Gingrich has been perceived in many parts of the country as a morality-for-thee-but-not-for-me figure, the sort of person who wants others to live up to a values standard he cannot attain himself. Gingrich must convince average Americans that he has learned from his past mistakes, and that a flawed role model might just be the best role model of all.

I wouldn’t bet against either Palin or Gingrich. Despite my past criticisms of both individuals, I respect Palin and Gingrich as intelligent, accomplished political figures who went much further than anyone originally expected them to. Palin and Gingrich would be able to articulate conservative principles in a way we haven’t seen from prominent Republicans in at least a decade.

Pessimistic conservatives would surely argue that Palin and Gingrich have sustained too many injuries at the hands of Fourth Estate assailants to have any hope of success. Let’s reject that cynical conclusion. There’s nothing the mainstream media can say about Palin and Gingrich that they haven’t said already. These two individuals have developed the thick skin necessary to withstand abrasions from ABC, nicks from NBC and cuts from CBS. Their immune systems are strong enough to fight off the disease of demonization.

A Palin-Gingrich ticket means peace for the troubled home that is the Republican Party. For too long, the party has been divided—social conservatives vs. social libertarians, heartland conservatives vs. the city-based center-right, foreign-policy idealists vs. foreign-policy realists. These fights have resulted in the party’s land being drenched by an unyielding, unforgiving rain. This rain will cease once Palin and Gingrich become the party’s official leaders; the floodwaters of intraparty acrimony will recede, and a rainbow of unity will cast a striking image upon the sky.

United, focused, determined to secure victory, the Palin-Gingrich GOP will be able to reach out to independent voters, convincing them that competence will at long last be restored to Washington. Palin and Gingrich will also be able to reach some moderates, assuring them that a Palin-Gingrich administration will not be intellectually inflexible or intolerant of other points of view. The only “rigid ideology” that will be found in a Palin-Gingrich administration will be the “rigid ideology” known as the Constitution.

Conservatives had to go through Carter to get to Reagan. Perhaps four years of Obama is the price that the American right must pay in order to be rewarded with a Palin-Gingrich administration. Let’s hope that on November 6, 2012, that balance will be paid in full.

William Kristol on the apparent resurgence of conservatism.

David Frum on health-care protests.

The Daily Beast interviews George P. Bush.

Jed Babbin on the tea party movement.

Paranormal Activity tops the charts.

It is inconceivable that Bush is unaware that the right wing of the Republican Party is already exceedingly skeptical about his conservatism. Grass-roots conservatives have expressed their distrust of W. well before his salvos at Congress.

Either Bush is not very conservative or is trying to pander to the moderate swing vote — either of which is troubling.

–David Limbaugh, October 1999

Here is a Republican, son of a president, white, Protestant and wealthy, who nonetheless was able to pull 49 percent of the Hispanic vote in the last election. Here is a Republican who believes in tax cuts, welfare reform and faith-based institutions but who speaks of “compassionate conservatism.” Has the messiah come?

So far, George W. has shown an agreeable allergy to taxes, a sensible commitment to missile defense and a commendable dedication to free trade. But on the issues that are loaded with mine fields — abortion and affirmative action — he has been so guarded that skeptics may well wonder how much beyond lip service they can expect from him.

–Mona Charen, June 1999

Bush remains the prohibitive favorite to secure the Republican presidential nod, with his oodles of money, legion of supporters and nonpareil political network. Yet he doesn’t appear to take the quest seriously. He behaves as if he were in an amusement park, pursuing a hobby rather than a calling.

A good fight will help him and his party, for almost as interesting as the fact that his backers want someone to practice tough love is the fact that even his GOP opponents fear his demise. One Republican candidate says a Bush meltdown would cost Republicans the White House and the House. Another has expressed open astonishment of shabby staff work by the Bush team, warning that Bush’s fate could shape GOP fortunes for the next decade or more.

–Tony Snow, November 1999

If this is the voice of compassionate conservatism, Democrats have nothing to fear.

–Michelle Malkin, September 1999

Is there a conservative case for polygamy?

It is an article of faith among social conservatives that efforts to extend the rights of marriage to gay and lesbian Americans will inevitably lead to legalized polygamy. After all, the argument goes, if gay and lesbian Americans cannot be denied marriage rights due to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, then how can a polygamous grouping be denied the same rights?

Logically, a polygamous grouping cannot be denied such rights. Regardless of how one feels about the extension of marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples, it seems clear that once gay-rights activists successfully make a grand-scale legal argument in favor of equal marriage, polygamous entities will also begin to make legal requests for equal marriage, requests that by all rights will have to be granted.

Despite the image represented by the mainstream media, there are quite a few prominent conservatives (including a former Vice President) who support the concept of extending marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples. However, if polygamous entities began pressing for marriage rights, how would the right respond?

In a secularized society, it’s a bit difficult to conceive of a compelling governmental interest in prohibiting polygamous marriage. There’s a fairly obvious compelling governmental interest in prohibiting incestuous marriage, of course. However, what would be the state’s rational purpose behind preventing polygamous marriage?

Conservatives who support same-sex marriage rights (but who don’t want to openly say so for fear of being ostracized by the “family values” faction of the conservative movement) sometimes argue that the government has no business determining what does or does not constitute a marriage. If that is indeed the case, then how could these conservatives object if a polygamous grouping filed a federal lawsuit challenging an anti-polygamy law as violating the Equal Protection Clause?

“Polyamory” may be a bizarre concept to some, but it does exist—just ask Mark Sanford. In a society with no official religion, a society theoretically built on the platform of freedom, why should an individual who falls in love with more than one person not have the right to be married to more than one person simultaneously?

Can it not be argued that, within the context of a secular society, extending marriage rights to polygamous entities would accord some degree of financial protection to the participants in such a marriage? Can it not be argued that allowing polygamous marriages would reduce the likelihood of adultery, the principal destroyer of marriage?

It’s not the sort of argument for a weak stomach, I grant you. However, just as the only real barrier to the national expansion of same-sex marriage would be the establishment of an American theocracy (which obviously could not be successfully implemented in the US), so too would the expansion of marriage rights to polygamous entities only be thwarted by the official replacement of the Constitution with the Bible.

Since the legal argument in favor of polygamous marriage could only be obstructed by a theoretical Christian equivalent of Shari’a, one wonders if the day will ever come in which mainstream conservatives stop worrying and learn to love the concept of legally sanctioned polyamory. I’m not sure how comfortable I am with such an idea.

If polygamous marriage is legalized, what psychological impact will such legalization have on the children of such marriages? I’m concerned by this, which is a bit odd because I don’t have such reservations when it comes to the children of gay and lesbian couples. I admit to subscribing to the, yes, liberal view that if two parents provide love and attention to their children, those children will turn out just fine regardless of the orientation of those parents; for all we know, Mary Cheney’s son Samuel could turn out to be more well-adjusted than even Malia and Sasha Obama. (I can’t envision Cheney taking young Sam to Trinity United Church of Christ to hear a radical pastor call down God’s vengeance on America, can you?)

However, at some point liberalism must yield to traditionalism. Two parents can effectively raise a child, but not three. One doesn’t need to be a social scientist to envision a scenario in which children of polygamous marriages will grow up wondering just what the hell is going on.

I’m not thrilled with the concept of polygamous marriage—but how can this concept be stopped in a secular society? Between freedom and tradition, which value has greater force? And if we have polygamous marriage, what about polygamous divorce?

Tucker Carlson on the President Obama vs. Fox News feud.

UPDATE: More from Charles Krauthammer and the New York Times.

(Below is the transcript of the October 21 edition of The Notes on Blog Talk Radio.)

On November 4, 1842, Abraham Lincoln married Mary Todd. On November 4, 1924, Nellie Ross became America’s first female Governor. On November 4, 1952, Dwight Eisenhower defeated Adlai Stevenson to become the first Republican President since Herbert Hoover. On November 4, 1979, the Iranian hostage crisis began. On November 4, 1980, Ronald Reagan conquered Jimmy Carter to become President.

And on November 4, 2008, Barack Obama defeated John McCain to become the 44th President of the United States, and the first African-American to secure that honor.

Obama ran an outstanding campaign, moving past the Clinton machine to become the Democratic nominee, and defeating McCain in one of the most intense contests in recent memory, second only to the 2000 Presidential election in terms of partisan heat. With 53 percent of the vote and 365 electoral votes, Obama’s victory signaled a desire for a change in direction from the previous eight years.

I did not vote for Obama, but I had to force myself to vote for McCain. In fact, I considered voting for neither candidate, regarding Obama as a man who looked to government first for solutions to problems, and perceiving McCain to be a worthless, wimpy candidate who would appoint decent judges but would otherwise be of no consequence or competence. I wasn’t necessarily heartbroken by McCain’s loss, and in fact, I was surprised that any conservative was depressed by his defeat.

Jonah Goldberg of National Review summed up my reaction perfectly. In a National Review Online posting the night of Obama’s victory, he wrote, “Obama ran a brilliant race and he should be congratulated for it. Moreover, during the debate over the financial crisis, Obama said that a president should be able to do more than one thing at a time. Well, I think we members of the loyal opposition should be able to make distinctions simultaneously. It is a wonderful thing to have the first African-American president. It is a wonderful thing that in a country where feelings are so intense that power can be transferred so peacefully. Let us hope that the Obama his most dedicated — and most sensible! — fans see turns out to be the real Obama. Let us hope that Obama succeeds and becomes a great president, for all the right reasons.”

Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe also struck a wise note when he wrote on November 5, “As a politician and policymaker, Obama distresses me; his extreme liberalism is decidedly not what the nation needs in its president. But as a symbol — a son of Africa elected to lead a majority-white nation that once enslaved Africans and treated their descendants with great cruelty — Obama’s rise makes me proud of my country. The anthem of the Civil Rights Movement was ‘We Shall Overcome.’ Impossible as it might have seemed scant decades ago, we have.”

Obama’s victory was historic, dramatic, trailblazing—and considering who he ran against, unavoidable.

____________________

In the months since Obama’s victory, I’ve often considered the notion that Obama effectively ran unopposed, that he did not have suitable competition. Certainly, he could have had better competition.

However, Obama’s accomplishment should not be undercut by such an argument. Obama was the strongest candidate the Democrats fielded since John F. Kennedy in 1960, a dynamic, compelling political figure with a fascinating personal story. His 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention in Boston was one of the best political speeches of all-time, a declaration that we were all Americans despite our political and social differences. When he announced his candidacy for President in February 2007, most political observers didn’t give him a chance. He proved them all wrong.

In early-2008, Obama faced a significant obstacle in his campaign, as the mainstream media, presumably at the behest of the Clinton campaign, began to focus in earnest on Obama’s relationship with controversial Chicago religious figure Jeremiah Wright. (Of course, Fox News Channel star Sean Hannity was the first national media figure to highlight the Obama-Wright connection, and the last one to get any credit for doing so, but we digress). In order to bring the controversy to an end, Obama delivered the so-called “A More Perfect Union” speech on March 18, 2008. In the speech, Obama distanced himself from Wright, declaring that his controversial sermons “expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country, a view that sees white racism as endemic and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems: two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis, and potentially devastating climate change — problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.”

While some conservatives, such as Charles Murray, praised the speech, the common reaction from the right was one of disgust. The late Weekly Standard writer Dean Barnett spoke for many conservatives when he wrote, “What the analysts who are gushing over Obama’s sentiments regarding race relations are missing is not only did Obama fail to accomplish the mission he needed to, he didn’t even really try. He made no attempt to explain his relationship with Wright and why he hung around a man who habitually offered such hateful rhetoric. Obama instead offered a non-sequitur on race relations.”

Many conservatives were mystified by the fact that Obama was able to successfully explain away his two-decade-long association with Wright–but this is not something that should have been all that surprising.

Two days before the “A More Perfect Union” speech, Religious Left figure Frank Schaeffer argued in the Huffington Post that Obama was being unfairly criticized for his affiliation with Wright. Schaeffer wrote that his father, the late evangelical leader Francis Schaeffer, was considered a hero by Republicans despite the fact that he used rhetoric every bit as controversial as Wright’s. Schaeffer wrote, “In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation’s sins, instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party…We were rewarded for our ‘stand’ by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American…The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister’s words, is staggering.”

The unfortunate reality is that Obama was able to explain away his affiliation with Wright in part because many Americans had become used to—and numb to—controversial rhetoric from religious figures. In other words, to many Americans, the crackpot comments from Jeremiah Wright were no big deal.

After defeating Hillary Clinton’s aggressive effort to prevent him from acquiring the Democratic nomination, Obama survived another controversy in August 2008, when he and McCain appeared at the Civil Forum on the Presidency hosted by Pastor Rick Warren. When Obama was asked at which point an unborn child acquires human rights, Obama responded that the answer to such a question was “above my pay grade.” Conservatives lashed out at Obama for his odd answer, and tried to remind voters about Obama’s track record on abortion. Unfortunately, this tactic also failed. Abortion was not going to be a defining issue in the 2008 election; therefore, Obama could have said whatever he wanted to at the event and he would have gotten away with it.

Obama was something of a Teflon candidate—and he did not become a Teflon candidate simply because of “media bias” or “white guilt.” He became a Teflon candidate…because he was a strong candidate.

Obama’s politics were liberal, but his character was conservative. He was a real-life Cliff Huxtable—a loving husband and father, a man who had seized his share of the American Dream. I remember watching some of his speeches and wishing that this man had been on the red side of the political aisle.

Back in January, I wrote a piece for Human Events Online analyzing why some right-leaning commentators were so fascinated by Obama. I noted that “Obama, of course, is the nation’s first black President—and while the conservative movement presents itself as color-blind, race has been a thorny issue for the right since the mid-1960s. Two events—Barry Goldwater’s misguided decision to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Richard Nixon’s 1968 effort to reposition the GOP as the home of middle- and working-class white Americans (the inaccurately named ‘Southern Strategy’)—led to a permanent split between the Republican Party and black voters. Despite the American right’s efforts to emphasize the critical role that Republican legislators played in passing the ’64 Civil Rights Act and the ideological overlap between Republicans and black voters on social issues, the GOP has performed poorly among black voters in Presidential elections since 1964.

“As the mainstream press has often noted, it is virtually impossible to find an elected black Republican in a prominent position in Washington or anywhere else in the country. The GOP’s decision to overlook black votes in favor of working- and middle-class white votes occurred just prior to the era in which future black leaders became politically aware.

“Obama and other post-civil-rights-movement black leaders came of age in a time when they were told, in ways direct and subtle, that the GOP wasn’t really interested in them. Perhaps if the GOP had attempted to attract black support in those days, charismatic and gifted figures like Obama would have become conservative Republicans instead of liberal Democrats.

“Perhaps the conservatives who are sympathetic to Obama see a man who, under different circumstances, could have been on the ‘right’ side. It has been said that during his days at Harvard Law School, Obama demonstrated extraordinary open-mindedness, giving equal weight and respect to the views of liberal and conservative students. Of course, by the time Obama arrived at Harvard Law, he had come to the conclusion that progressivism was the more sensible worldview—a conclusion undoubtedly influenced by the way the GOP politically positioned itself in an earlier era. It’s not hard to imagine [some conservatives] thinking to themselves: If our guys hadn’t alienated thoughtful people like him years ago, he’d be one of us today.”

Last year, it got to the point where I was bitterly jealous of the Democratic Party for having a candidate like Obama. I didn’t want the Democrats to have the honor of placing the first “brother” in the White House; the Party of Lincoln should have had that honor, I felt. It had been an article of faith on the right for decades that the first black President would be a Republican—and now, the Democrats threatened to destroy that hope.

The night before Obama delivered his acceptance speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Jonah Goldberg wrote: “I didn’t want to let it pass without saying that it is a wonderful thing that a black man can gain the nomination of a major American political party. The Democratic Party, which didn’t admit black delegates to one of its conventions until 1936 (the GOP did nearly a half-century earlier) has done a great and historic thing. It’s another example of America’s greatness many fail to appreciate: We are better at racial and ethnic reconciliation and assimilation than pretty much all of these countries that are supposed to be more enlightened than we are. I sincerely doubt the French, British, Germans et al. will be considering a candidate of African descent like this for quite a while.

“And, if Obama is elected president, on this narrow but important criteria, it would be a wonderful thing for the country to elect a black man.

“Now, I don’t think we should elect the guy, for all the obvious reasons and a few less-than-obvious ones. I don’t think you should vote for a man just because of the color of their skin (just as I don’t think you should vote against someone because of the color of their skin). And I don’t think having our first African-American president be a failed president (which I think he would probably be) would be a wonderful thing for race relations either. I’ve long thought the first black president would be a Republican. I still think it would be better for the country if that were the case, and if Obama loses I’m sure the next African-American with a shot at the job will be a Republican.

“But it’s worth taking a moment to say this is an exciting benchmark in racial progress.”

Of course, the GOP could have broken the political glass ceiling first if the party had been able to convince Colin Powell to challenge President Clinton in 1996. While Powell was certainly a left-wing, Rockefeller-style Republican, Powell would have generated the same momentum, the same desire for change, the same spirit of optimism that Obama generated twelve years later. He would have defeated Clinton in a landslide, restoring honor and dignity to the White House. More importantly, he could have destroyed, once and for all, the image of the GOP as a racially hostile entity. Unfortunately, he failed to run, the GOP failed to win in ‘96, and Clinton just kept on screwing around in the Oval Office.

____________________________

On August 28, 2008, Obama officially accepted the Democratic National Committee’s Presidential nomination. He delivered a strong speech, one damaged only by the ridiculous potshots against McCain. The Arizona Senator was already a weak, lousy candidate; Obama didn’t need to pile on.

The closing paragraphs of Obama’s speech were, even from a conservative perspective, eloquent and excellent. He declared, “This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that’s not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that’s not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that’s not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

“Instead, it is that American spirit - that American promise - that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

“That promise is our greatest inheritance. It’s a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours - a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.

“And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln’s Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

“The men and women who gathered there could’ve heard many things. They could’ve heard words of anger and discord. They could’ve been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.

“But what the people heard instead - people of every creed and color, from every walk of life - is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.

“‘We cannot walk alone,’ the preacher cried. ‘And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.’

“America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise - that American promise - and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.”

It seemed, at that point, that the election was essentially over. It was. Conservatives just didn’t realize it.

______________________

John McCain’s selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin breathed new life into his campaign—but, looking back, it was a form of CPR that failed to revive the body. Palin was seen as the second coming of Ronald Reagan, someone who could harness the power of conservative populism and drive the McCain campaign to victory. However, that did not happen.

Despite her political talents, Palin could not make enough Americans look past McCain’s fundamental flaws. The McCain-Palin ticket seemed disorganized and unfocused, while the Obama-Joe Biden ticket seemed to function as the proverbial well-oiled machine. It seemed that the McCain-Palin ticket could not handle the onslaught of the mainstream media, the mockery from Tina Fey of Saturday Night Live, the skepticism from prominent conservative commentators and, especially, the September 2008 economic meltdown. Once that meltdown occurred, the momentum McCain and Palin generated ground to a halt.

It’s almost too painful to recall the controversies surrounding the McCain-Palin campaign: “Joe the Plumber” and “Tito the Builder,” the bizarre rhetoric and offensive imagery at some of the GOP rallies, McCain’s odd-duck references to Obama as “Senator Government” and “That One” at the Presidential debates. McCain was, without dispute, the single worst Republican Presidential nominee in the entire 155-year history of the GOP.

It’s also too painful to rehash the circumstances surrounding McCain’s acquisition of the GOP nomination. Suffice it so say that had conservatives coalesced around one alternative to McCain instead of splitting their votes among different candidates, the nightmare that was the McCain campaign could have been avoided.

Just think about it. Think of all the things conservatives don’t like about the young Obama Presidency—czars, Obamacare, Van Jones, Kevin Jennings, Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, Sonia Sotomayor. All of this could have avoided if conservatives had shown a little more brains back in 2007-2008.

It’s hard to look at Obama without imaging what could have been. What if this man had seen merit in the Republican Party as opposed to the Democratic Party? And failing that, what if conservative Republicans had their damned act together in the 2008 GOP primary, instead of acting stupidly by failing to unite around an alternative to McCain?

If only wisdom had prevailed back then. Conservatives would have been spared so much agony. Conservatives should have been spared so much agony.

The past cannot be altered, only remembered. Let’s hope conservatives remember what happened in 2008. Let’s hope they remember that one needs a strong candidate to fight a strong candidate. Let’s remember that it takes a competent campaign to defeat a competent campaign. Let’s remember that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.