The Soulless Nanny State

Tricia was just trying to take her little boy to preschool when the tentacles of the Nanny State invaded her car and terrified her little boy. The young mother of two little boys, whose husband died suddenly and tragically barely a year ago, has courageously blogged about her journey as a widow. On this day, she was trying to get her son to preschool on time when she went through a yellow light, resulting in flashing lights and an unplanned visit by a police officer:

"Ma'am, obviously I pulled you over for running that red light."

"Yes, I see that. I'm sorry about that."

"License, registration and proof of insurance, please."

I retrieve them all from the glove box. Robb has taught me faithfully to keep them at my fingertips when driving (although I don't think Mr. Citizen of the Year ever needed to call upon them at a moment's notice).

"Ma'am, are your plates expired?"

I recall the sticker that came in the mail.

"No, they're current."

"Well, your registration has expired. This form expired in 2011."

(I wanted to say, and we are roughly 23 days into 2012. Happy New Year.)

"Well, my insurance is up to date, but I think I forgot to put the new card in my car." My husband always did that for me.

"Ma'am, your insurance card is expired as well, but I'm talking about your registration right now."

I can't really listen to what you're talking about right now. Because all I can see is my husband handing me the new insurance card, four months before the old one expired, reminding me to keep both of them in the glove box, just in case.

Oh, how I drove him crazy with my carelessness about such things. "Robb, it's February. I don't need that until April."

"Tricia, put it in there, please. Just... please."

On day three of my forgetting, he would move it from the kitchen counter to my glove box. Just in case.

"Officer, my husband died one year ago. This is a detail he took care of for me. It, um, this one apparently slipped through the cracks. I assure you - everything is current."

"Well, I will need to make sure of that. Do you know that it is a summonsable offense to drive a car with an expired registration? I take people to jail for this."

I could practically hear Tyler's eyebrows shoot through the ceiling as she walked back to her cruiser.

He was terrified. He has one parent left, and this police officer just threatened to take me to jail. I cried. Not because of the threat, not because of the pending ticket, not because I was pulled over at all. I cried because I missed my husband. Tyler asked a million questions.

"Mommy, why did she take your stuff with her?

Where did she go?

Is she coming back

Are you going to jail?

Am I going to school?

Why are you crying?

Are you crying because you're going to jail?"

I'm crying because this is the 'just in case' Robb tried to prepare me for. The officer returned to my window. "Ma'am, I called the DMV, and your registration is in fact current." (I told you it was.) I nod. "But that phone call is not my job, ma'am. That's your job."

Add it to the list. Everything is my job now. [emphasis added]

The police officer added a cherry on top by lecturing her about how short life is and warning her about the dangers of running red lights. As if she didn't know about the fragility and brevity of life on this earth.

Of  course, we can argue that the police officer was "just doing her job" and following the state traffic laws. She was. But the patronizing editorializing and threats of jail time for a questionable traffic violation belie an attitude of arrogance that bureaucrats of all stripes seem compelled to lord over their subjects.  The Czars of the Administrative State hold the freedom and liberty of the rest of us in the files and computers in their dingy government offices.

Now imagine these same soulless bureaucrats running our healthcare. You'd better hope your papers with the Ministry of Bureaucratic Nighmares are in order at all times lest that emergency heart cath be denied by some faceless paper pusher at the other end of the phone. The only question will be whether you are merely denied coverage or you're also threatened with jail time for not complying with the Department of Obamacare's Nine Circles of the Nanny State requirements.  It's a terrifying prospect.

Cross-posted - Redstate

Best Answer in Any Debate Yet

Rick Santorum had an excellent debate tonight. He left Romney curled up in the fetal position sucking his thumb after his take-down of Romneycare and while Romney and Gingrich were scratching each others eyes out, Santorum stepped in and reminded them that there were actual, real, important issues in the campaign. He was the adult in the room with the squabbling brats.


But there was one moment near the end of the debate where Santorum clearly defined the differences between what we, as conservatives, believe and what Obama believes. Wolf had asked the candidates how their faith would affect their decisions as president. Santorum pointed to our founding documents:

‎"Faith is a very important part of my life and it's an important part of this country. The foundational documents of our country-everyone talks about the Constitution, very important-but the Constitution is the 'how' of America. It's the operator's manual. The 'why' of America, who we are as a people,  is in the Declaration of Independence. 'We hold these trust to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.' The Constitution is there to do one thing, to protect God given rights. That's what makes America different than every other country in the world. No other country in the world has its rights based in God-given rights, not government-given rights. And so you say, well, faith has nothing to do with it. Faith has everything to do with it [applause]. If our President believes that rights come to us from the state, then everything government gives you, it can take away. The role of the government is to protect rights that cannot be taken away. And so the answer to that question, I believe in faith, in reason in approaching the problems of this country. But understand where those rights come from, who we are as Americans, and the foundational principals by which we have changed the world." [bold emphasis added]

Can we just stop for a minute and imagine what Obama's pathetic rebuttal to that might be? Because that's at the heart of the debate we need to have in this country.


I think declarations that Newt is the one and only candidate who can take it to Obama in a debate have been both premature and misguided. Santorum has turned in several strong debate performances; the more time he's given, the stronger he gets. And he's able to articulate conservatism without apology. I've said in previous diaries that Newt is an unstable and untrustworthy candidate. I think we saw tonight that he's beginning to crumble under the pressure. I would like to see Santorum given a shot at the title now,  before it's too late and we're stuck with one of these other two poseurs.



Cross-posted RedState

Are We Electing a Pastor in Chief?

When Governor Perry dropped out of the race on Thursday and endorsed Newt Gingrich, he had this to say:

“Newt is not perfect, but who among us is? There is forgiveness for those who seek God, and I believe in the power of redemption.”

Who could argue with that, especially those of us who are Christians? Well, forgiveness isn't really the issue. Newt has not wronged me or most who will read this. We have not personally met him or anyone in his family and his past marital infidelities have not personally affected us. There was no need for him to ask for your forgiveness or mine. Certainly, just as when a pebble is dropped into a pond and there is an ever widening circle of ripples, Newt's adultery and associated bad behavior affected many, many people in his life, so it is likely that there are many people he should have begged for forgiveness when he came to the point in his life where he had a religious conversion (2009) and repented of his former misdeeds.

Pastor John MacArthur explains the difference between a mere apology and repentance:

"Genuine repentance always involves a confession of wrongdoing and a willingness to make things right. An apology often takes the form of an excuse. 

"The word apology comes from the Greek apologia, which literally means "a speech in defense of." Apologies are often nothing more than self-defense: "I'm sorry if you took offense, but . . ." 

"Genuine repentance is properly expressed in an admission of wrongdoing and a plea for forgiveness: "It was unthoughtful of me to say that. Will you forgive me?"
Be wary of using merely apologetic language in place of genuine repentance."

For what it's worth, wife #2 in this sordid saga, Marianne, has said that she is still waiting for an apology from Newt.

Gingrich told the crowd at the S. Carolina debate on Thursday, “Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I had in that period who knew us said the story is false." He said this in response to CNN moderator John King's question about the "open marriage" allegations Marianne leveled against him in her Nightline interview.

And here's where we get to the distinction between "presidential candidate Newt" versus "husband Newt."  Obviously, in almost any divorce situation, there will be a certain amount of 'he said, she said.' The conversation about whether Newt asked his wife for an open marriage was most certainly not made in the company of "every personal friend" Newt is hiding behind in his denial, so his denials are not credible, unless, based upon Gingrich's reputation and trustworthiness, we believe him to be a truthful person. The same goes for Mariannes allegations.

And therein lies the crux of the problem. Newt tells us he's a changed man. He tells us he's had a religious conversion. He tells us that we can believe what he says. Only what he says seems to change from year to year and even week to week and he demonstrates behavior that is inconsistent with the devout Catholic he proclaims to be.

So it's not a matter of whether we forgive Newt. It's a matter of whether we trust him.

While I'd like to take him at his word and I ardently hope for his sake and the sake of his family that his repentance and conversion are sincere, I have serious suspicions that the New Newt has much in common with the Old Newt.

I have previously documented Newt's flip-flops in recent years (sometimes within the same week) on stem cell research and when life begins and on climate change. Here are a few more:

• Paul Ryan's budget plan
• Health insurance mandate
• No fly zone in Libya
• Criminal court trials for suspected terrorists 
• Publicly criticizing Freddie/Fannie while personally profiting as a lobbyist historian
• Endorsing liberal Dede Scozzafava

It's not being uncharitable or judgmental to ask why Newt has flip-flopped so often (and so quickly) on so many important issues in recent years. Francis Beckwith, a Catholic professor (and admirer of Gingrich) wrote that he would not endorse him for president. Though he believes that Newt's conversion is sincere, he says his Catholic doctrine teaches that,

"...absolution of sins does not eradicate all the effects and consequences of those sins on the shaping of one’s character. This requires ongoing conversion, including detaching oneself from those things that may provide an occasion for sin. 

"It seems to me that a man whose sins arose as a consequence of the pursuit of political power and the unwise use of it after he became Speaker of the House should not be seeking the most powerful office in the world."

Which brings me back around to Marianne. While the CNN debate made for a good show and we all enjoyed watching Newt gnaw off John King's shin, Newt's actual words betrayed a man who has an ugly underbelly. As he was finishing up King's shin and moving up to his kneecap, he said this:

"Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine."

For whatever reason, Newt chose not to acknowledge that he was the one who caused the "painful things." He seems to place his adulterous affairs in the same category as losing a loved one to cancer or having a child with a disability.  To make it worse, he rips CNN for using "trash like that" in a presidential debate.

Bob Walker, Gingrich's senior political adviser said in advance of Marianne's interview, “That was a very bitter divorce, and you’re talking about somebody who is still, probably, very bitter.”

I don't know what kind of religious counsel Newt is receiving, but the fact that a woman he was married to for 18-years is still so bitter all these years later as a result of his sin against her should cause him great sorrow. As John MacArthur said, true repentance includes "confession of wrongdoing and a willingness to make things right." Instead, Newt lashes out and refers to her story as "trash like that" to level a blow against moderator John King and gain the approval of the crowd. There is no cause for cheering and scoring points when discussing adultery and the death of a marriage.

Doug Wilson, perhaps said it best (the entire blog post is well worth reading) when describing Newt's response to King:

"Newt, in bellicose mode, wasn't having any and said to him, on the contrary, "your network decided to lead off with this question, and it was Disgraceful, Appalling, Reprehensible," or whatever words of high dudgeon he used. "How dare you bring moral indignation into a presidential debate! I'll show you moral indignation." The audience was at first agape, and then it roared to its feet. Is he not whacking a liberal? What's not to like? Despicable is not serial adultery. Despicable is asking about it."

For many, these serious character issues will not be a problem. For me, it's a problem. I want a president who I can reasonably believe will do what he promises to do. One who our allies believe they can trust. Is it too much to ask for a man of character in 2012, or is that an outdated notion? When the history of the next presidency is written, will it tell the story of another Lyndon B. Johnson, or will we elect a Reagan?

Peggy Noonan, in an essay about President Reagan, for whom she was a speechwriter, said this:

"In a president, character is everything. A president doesn't have to be brilliant; Harry Truman wasn't brilliant, and he helped save Western Europe from Stalin. He doesn't have to be clever; you can hire clever. White Houses are always full of quick-witted people with ready advice on how to flip a senator or implement a strategy. You can hire pragmatic, and you can buy and bring in policy wonks. 

"But you can't buy courage and decency, you can't rent a strong moral sense. A president must bring those things with him. If he does, they will give meaning and animation to the great practical requirement of the presidency: He must know why he's there and what he wants to do. He has to have thought it through. He needs to have, in that much maligned word, but a good one nontheless, a vision of the future he wishes to create. This is a function of thinking, of the mind, the brain. But a vision is worth little if a president doesn't have the character--the courage and heart--to see it through...."

We are the greatest country in the world. We're not electing a Pastor in Chief, but moral character is an important element in leadership. Moral failure in a president will not only damage the Republican party for years to come, it will demoralize and harm the country I love. Newt is not a risk worth taking.

Cross-posted at RedState

Perry's Path to Victory: WWRRD?

"I want to let you know that I am one of the many thousands of young people who are working hard to elect Ronald Reagan president of the United States. Our country needs the changes Governor Reagan has proposed. And we surely can't afford four more years of national decline under Jimmy Carter. I would appreciate it if, as a favor to me and to America, you will vote for Reagan for President on November 4."

Erick has occupied considerable bandwith in recent weeks telling the Perry campaign it's time to reboot. Beyond his suggestions for staff adjustments, this diary offers some more specific, strategic suggestions. But let me begin by saying I have no special expertise* except that I'm the mother of a Hillsdale College student who is active in his school's College Republicans (currently a Perry supporter) and another son who is a high school senior who will cast his first vote on Super Tuesday in Ohio. Both were homeschooled for the majority of their education. I've also worked as a volunteer on a lot of campaigns, both old school grassroots and new media, in Ohio, an important swing state, for what that's worth.

WWRRD - What Would Ronald Reagan Do?

In a 2007 article at the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell III described President Reagan's astounding success among young voters and the GOP's subsequent decline with this age group:

"In a [1984] pre-election poll taken for Time magazine, voters aged 18 to 24 said they were backing or leaning toward Reagan by a margin of 45 points – 63 percent to 18 – a lead nearly ten points wider than in any other age bracket....

"... But since then, young voters have swung dramatically and solidly toward the Democrats. CNN exit polls in 2004 showed that John Kerry beat Bush only among voters under 30 (by a 54 to 45 percent margin). In the 2006 elections, young voters gave Democrats a whopping advantage of 60 to 38 percent, far more than any other age group. "

Clearly, the Republicans have a lot of ground to regain. The U.S. Census Bureau tells us there are some 21 million 20-24 year olds in this country - 7% of the population (no details on whether this includes only eligible voters). Most of these weren't eligible to vote in 2000 and many are not yet registered voters.


Reagan recognized the advantage of courting this age group and used their enthusiasm (and manpower) to his advantage. Time is short, but with modern technology, Governor Perry can replicate Reagan's efforts and gain an advantage over his competitors that could provide a path to the GOP nomination.

“There is a new patriotism spreading across our country. So when you're put there, set your sights high . . . Then go for it! Do it for yourselves, for your families, for your country and . . .do it for the Gipper.”

The "Millennials" flocked to Obama in the last presidential election because he offered them hope and change and an iconic vision for the future. In many ways, it's similar to what Carter offered the country after the scandal of the Nixon administration and the leftover frustrations of the Vietnam War. Carter didn't deliver on his promise of a kinder and gentler world. Malaise and the Cold War wasn't what America signed up for. Reagan came along and inspired and encouraged an entire nation and the youth he won in 1980 continue to vote Republican today.

Currently, Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate actively courting young voters and he's attracting libertarians, disenchanted Obama voters, anti-war activist, and new voters who aren't really sure what they believe. While many of Paul's followers are surely ideological purists, much of his success in the polls and in Iowa can be attributed to a group of young voters who just want someone (or something) to believe in and a movement they can belong to or a way to make their world a better place.

Conservatives can and must take back the youth vote and I believe Gov. Perry is the one who can do it. Both his personal charisma and his straight-talking, authentic style will appeal to young voters and on substance, there is room for Perry to convince this generation that conservative, free-market principals are the way to make the world a better place and to inspire them to see, as Hillsdale College's President Dr. Larry Arnn is fond of saying, the good, the true, and the beautiful in America.

So what did Reagan do and What Would Reagan Do in 2012?

In 1986, Reagan was halfway through his second term and mindful that the GOP still needed to court the youth vote. The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote:

"The President plans to meet with groups of high school and college students about once a week for at least the next two months to maintain his special relationship with them and to preach his conservative philosophy. On May 13, for example, he met at the White House with a group of high school seniors from North Carolina, and last week he met with another group of students in a session that was televised live to high schools across the country."

The Inquirer continued with some comments from then-White House Communications Director Pat Buchanan, who said that apart from a desire to establish "a conservative dynasty," Reagan was fond of doing question-and-answer sessions with young people.

"We're working with various formats and testing them out, and when we come to the ideal one, we may do it on a more regular basis. It's something the President likes. He has great rapport with young people."

Dennis Thomas, another senior presidential assistant, said that the administration was trying to "redefine the role of government" and that young people may be the most receptive to Reagan's philosophy of less government involvement:

"If we can achieve a national philosophy that is more in line with Ronald Reagan's view of the world, then we'll have a continuing and a more permanent legacy. That's the purpose of what we're trying to do with young people."

Gov. Perry can do this, too. Of course, he doesn't have the luxury of hanging out on college campuses seven days a week, but he can recruit scores of students who do have that luxury. He can recruit them by speaking on campuses and surrounding himself with young supporters. Begin to change the narrative that Ron Paul and Meghan McCain represent the youth wing and the future of the GOP. It's not true and their loudmouthed followers shouldn't get to define that for conservatives.

The Perry campaign should immediately use part of whatever is left of his cash stash to hire someone to contact the College Republicans (CR), Students in Free Enterprise and every other group of conservative young people they can think of at every school, beginning with S. Carolina and Florida. Secure invitations through these groups to speak at as many schools as possible between now and Super Tuesday (I'm partial to Hillsdale!), but most important, reach out to them. Find students who would be willing to join a special "Students for Perry" team that would receive special emails and text alerts .(My inside expert tells me twice a week is perfect). Let them know they will be receiving special assignments and - this is very important - don't drop the ball. This age group is looking for authenticity, so do what you say you will do.

Ron Paul's people are already doing this because they understand that this age group is not watching TV ads, they do not read mailers, and they are not watching the debates. They are hearing about candidates on Jimmy Fallon and Jon Stewart right now. But Perry can change that if he starts speaking to them directly and creating a volunteer network across the country that will engage in grassroots campaigning via new media targeted to their age group (see Obama: 2010). Imagine if every college campus - or even 20% of them - had a "Students for Perry" group with Facebook pages and Twitter accounts. The impact could be enormous.

A word on messaging...

A 2010 Pew Forum study on religion, politics and social issues found that the Millennial generation is less likely to attend church than their parents, more likely to approve of gay marriage, and more likely to approve of big government solutions to social problems.

So, should Perry change his positions to win their votes? No, silly, that's Romney's job! As Reagan did, Perry should "redefine the role of government" so that "young people may be the most receptive to our philosophy of less government involvement." He should look them in the eye, and as he does better than any other candidate in the race, explain to them that they live in the greatest, most exceptional country in the world and then teach them how we came to be that way.

This generation appreciates and understands stories and narrative rather than charts, graphs, and statistics. They must be taught about "Peace through Strength" by telling them a compelling story of a child suffering in E. Germany before the fall of the Berlin Wall. They must learn about life before the Cold War ended by hearing stories of American children crouching beneath their desks practicing for the nuclear holocaust in Texas and families digging bomb shelters in their backyards in S. Carolina. Most of them never learned that in school and don't understand that the doctrine of "Peace through Strength" makes America - and the world - a safer place.

That's how we win back the young Ron Paul supporters in the arena of ideas and the way we lure the #Occupy kids out of their tents in the streets.

Finally, the sweatshop of the conservative movement...

A couple years ago my son, Ryan, and I attended a Leadership Institute Youth Leadership School. They were kind enough to let me tag along for free, since I was the driver. First rate organization, first rate training. I learned more useful campaigning skills that weekend than I had in 20 years of active campaigning. Adam Guillette, who led our class that weekend said this:

"Homeschoolers are the sweatshop of the conservative movement."

Now, an overly sensitive homeschooler might have been offended, but Ryan and I knew it was true. We had worked in the trenches on campaigns with other homeschoolers and we knew about this valuable resource. In fact, not long after that class, we worked with a bunch of homeschoolers to help run a primary campaign for a congressional candidate. He didn't really stand a chance against a millionaire car dealer, but we put up a decent effort with almost no money and 5 competitors. My son, then in high school, ran the youth campaign and he and his friend, also in high school, designed the website (yes, shameless bragging).

It seems Rick Santorum learned this secret and used it to his advantage in Iowa. There has been an explosion of homeschool graduates in the past several years and studies have shown that they are more likely to vote, attend public meetings and work on campaigns. Clearly, they tend to be awfully good at reproducing (see: The Duggers) and have much more control over their time than families with kids in school. [Important note: don't even THINK about trying to get your grubby paws on the mailing list. Even if you get it, if you spam the list it will backfire in ways approaching biblical proportions. Ask Michele.]

So while Gov. Perry's youth liaison is working on tracking down those groups, he should have someone tracking down the leaders of homeschool groups in important states. The conversations should go something like this:

"I'm a former homeschooler and I'm with Gov. Perry's campaign. I understand that you may not have made up your mind about this election but I'd like to invite you to join his special email list for homeschooling leaders. As you may know, Texas is one of the most free states in the country for homeschooling. A President Perry would love to spread that message of freedom for homeschoolers across the country. And by the way, we've prepared a packet of educational material and coloring sheets about the primaries for the kids. Would you like us to email it to you and your members?"

[Ryan suggests they should offer coloring sheets on firearm safety...I didn't raise no dummy!]

Then send a personal invitation to Perry's next nearby town hall to that leader and all 9 of his children. Congratulations. You have just launched the "sweatshop of the conservative movement" in that city.

These suggestions may seem counter-intuitive in this day and age of huge, expensive media buys and the traditional path of mailers and coveted endorsements. Courting the youth vote doesn't involve a huge financial investment, but, rather, a change of mindset and vision. As author Suzy Welch recently said on Piers Morgan:

"People end up voting on the the humanity of the candidate. They look at the two people and they say, 'Who do I trust more to get us out of the mess we're in?'"

This is more true of young people than of any other age group. And if they can be inspired, find causes or candidates to believe in, they will walk across hot coals or sleep in tents on city streets for them. When my 20-year-old watched Gov. Perry's rousing speech from the Hannity's Freedom concert he was inspired. Perry's American exceptionalism spoke to him as Reagan's spoke to me when I cast my first vote in 1984, not knowing then whether I was a Republican or a Democrat. I believe Perry can do for the conservatism what Reagan did for it in the 80's. I hope he doesn't let the opportunity pass him by.

Ryan Bolyard contributed to this diary.

*Disclaimer: I'm an Ohio delegate for Gov. Perry.